Intellectuals arent always right though

[Lars]

In the past, doctors recommended smoking. So just being authority figures on something doesnt make them right is all.
When Smoking Was Just What the Doctor Ordered | The Saturday Evening Post

 

[Twilight Hue]

In the past, doctors recommended smoking. So just being authority figures on something doesnt make them right is all.
When Smoking Was Just What the Doctor Ordered | The Saturday Evening Post

Doctors on tobacco payroll.

 

[Viker]

My grandfather was a physician in this era, also a heart/lung specialist. He was warning patients and others of the deadly danger of smoking. His siren was silenced by the fact he had no corporate interest to back him. This was not the fail of medical sciences, it was the deliberate manipulation by a multi-billion dollar tobacco lobby.

 

[Vinayaka]

Ideas also change over time, and people, if they have a clue, will adjust to the incoming research. It's not people were stupid, it's that people didn't have the new info.

 

[Lars]

My grandfather was a physician in this era, also a heart/lung specialist. He was warning patients and others of the deadly danger of smoking. His siren was silenced by the fact he had no corporate interest to back him. This was not the fail of medical sciences, it was the deliberate manipulation by a multi-billion dollar tobacco lobby.

Which is why corruption within can happen like that. Thats why facts should go above authority figures of just blindly trusting doctors. I am not trying to suggest being anti intellectual here. Since people in the field probably has more expertise on what they are doing. But automatically assuming that they know what they are talking about all the time is just being naive is all

 

[Viker]

Which is why corruption within can happen like that. Thats why facts should go above authority figures of just blindly trusting doctors. I am not trying to suggest being anti intellectual here. Since people in the field probably has more expertise on what they are doing. But automatically assuming that they know what they are talking about all the time is just being naive is all

You are correct. Appeals to authority should always be suspect. Like celebrity endorsements.

Appeals to reason and facts should never be overlooked.

 

[Twilight Hue]

You are correct. Appeals to authority should always be suspect. Like celebrity endorsements.

Appeals to reason and facts should never be overlooked.

It's why I like independent sources far more than mainstream.

 

[McCallister]

In the past, doctors recommended smoking. So just being authority figures on something doesnt make them right is all.
When Smoking Was Just What the Doctor Ordered | The Saturday Evening Post

Nobody’s always right especially me lol

 

[AlexanderG]

I mean, an intellectual or expert speaking on their topic of study is more likely than to be correct than some random layperson. And the consensus of experts in a field is more likely to be correct than an individual expert.

Obviously, if someone is being paid or coerced to have a particular opinion, like in bible colleges where the faculty have to sign statements of faith, then their opinions are untrustworthy even within their ostensible area of expertise.

 

[Father Heathen]

Powerful industries have always lobbied against science whenever it threatened profits. Tobacco, climate change, etc.

 

[Father Heathen]

It's why I like independent sources far more than mainstream.

Sean Hannity and Alex Jones are hardly independent and objective sources.

 

[F1fan]

In the past, doctors recommended smoking. So just being authority figures on something doesnt make them right is all.
When Smoking Was Just What the Doctor Ordered | The Saturday Evening Post

Wanna see scary, look into the history of psychology. I had to take a class in this for my BS and it is disgraceful what early scientists did. After the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan in 1945 many scientists got together to actively set standards of ethics for science. Oddly the ethics of science had been set by rather archaic Christian attitudes and beliefs, namely that humans are special and all other animals have no "souls" or "spirit", thus their suffering has no moral concern. Over time there are animal rights, and bans on using animals for testing if it causes harm or distress.

 

[F1fan]

In the past, doctors recommended smoking. So just being authority figures on something doesnt make them right is all.
When Smoking Was Just What the Doctor Ordered | The Saturday Evening Post

But hey man, 4 out of 5 dentists recommend Dentine. You got a problem with Dentine?

My example offsets your example. We are now at 0.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Wanna see scary, look into the history of psychology. I had to take a class in this for my BS and it is disgraceful what early scientists did. After the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan in 1945 many scientists got together to actively set standards of ethics for science. Oddly the ethics of science had been set by rather archaic Christian attitudes and beliefs, namely that humans are special and all other animals have no "souls" or "spirit", thus their suffering has no moral concern. Over time there are animal rights, and bans on using animals for testing if it causes harm or distress.

I presume no scientists are working in the weapons industry, or for oil companies now then?

 

[Lars]

Wanna see scary, look into the history of psychology. I had to take a class in this for my BS and it is disgraceful what early scientists did. After the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan in 1945 many scientists got together to actively set standards of ethics for science. Oddly the ethics of science had been set by rather archaic Christian attitudes and beliefs, namely that humans are special and all other animals have no "souls" or "spirit", thus their suffering has no moral concern. Over time there are animal rights, and bans on using animals for testing if it causes harm or distress.

Intellectuals also thought communism was a good idea. Famine and starvation worked on that model.
But it is normal for intellectuals now to blame religious culture aswell, rather than believing one automatically arent at fault sometimes

 

[F1fan]

I presume no scientists are working in the weapons industry, or for oil companies now then?

Is there a problem with oil and weapons? Both are what is demanded by politicians and citizens.

Look at the history of the development of nuclear power. The man that figured out chain reaction has his patent filed in secret because he knew how nuclear power could be misused. Eventually he realized the knowledge of chain reaction would be understood by other physicists and he felt that if anyone would have nuclear weapons it should be the British admiralty, and Britain's allies. It was known that Germany was developing these weapons and scientists were caught in a more dilemma.

After the bombs from Los Alamos were proven to work this same scientist asked Einstein to help draft a letter to Roosevelt to not use the bombs on civilian targets. he wanted the bombs demonstrated to an international audience, including Japanese representatives so they could consider surrendering before more lives were lost. As we know Roosevelt died, and Truman decided to drop the bombs on three cities, but only two were bombed.

Scientists only figure out how nature works, and when it is dangerous it is up to politicians and societies to use these discoveries responsibly and safely. As we know fossil fuel use is causing serious problems to the climate and it may be too late to make adjustments.

 

[F1fan]

Intellectuals also thought communism was a good idea. Famine and starvation worked on that model.

Intellectually Marxism is quite a rational and ideal approach. It just happens to difficult to pull off with the many human faults. Most every governing system has problems working around human faults.

But it is normal for intellectuals now to blame religious culture aswell, rather than believing one automatically arent at fault sometimes

There is plenty of blame to go around. Religion is not exempt for many tragedies and crimes through history. If anything we should expect more decency from religion given what they claim. When religion does wrong we should hold them to their higher standard.

 

[Lars]

Intellectually Marxism is quite a rational and ideal approach. It just happens to difficult to pull off with the many human faults. Most every governing system has problems working around human faults.


There is plenty of blame to go around. Religion is not exempt for many tragedies and crimes through history. If anything we should expect more decency from religion given what they claim. When religion does wrong we should hold them to their higher standard.

Problem with marxism or socialism... is when centralized voting occurs and it becomes one party system. You know? The faults that plagued communism. Thats why its a bad system. The only system that can work in a centralized system is social democracy with parties that fights for certain view. (mainly because social democracy uses capitalism with welfare state and helpful systematic stuff that people who are out of work deserve to have a place to live, but not to reward people who dont get job. Basically you need to want to work with whatever occupation you educate yourself in basically)

But socialist culture is very authoritarian same with marxism. Its why its bad, any system whether its fascism or marxism or both.... bad bad bad. Any system that represses people`s viewpoints is just bad in a sense

 

[F1fan]

Problem with marxism or socialism... is when centralized voting occurs and it becomes one party system. You know?

Not really. Marxism is just a system that aims to balance the advantaged from the disadvantaged. How any government is formed is open. I think you are just looking at Russia's history as if it is a good example of Marxism. It isn't.

The faults that plagued communism. Thats why its a bad system. The only system that can work in a centralized system is social democracy with parties that fights for certain view. (mainly because social democracy uses capitalism with welfare state and helpful systematic stuff that people who are out of work deserve to have a place to live, but not to reward people who dont get job. Basically you need to want to work with whatever occupation you educate yourself in basically)

When you say "welfare state" I take it you are ignoring how corporations get loads of benefits and tax breaks, and only focus on those who are disadvantaged in society and can't compete with the middle class.

The reason welfare is necessary in the USA is because basic wages are so low that unskilled workers have few options to make ends meet. Welfare is more how the government subsidizes the low wages by companies. The workers should be getting a wage that is more consistent with the cost of living, but conservatives oppose this as they cut taxes on the obscenely rich. Greed at work.

But socialist culture is very authoritarian same with marxism.

Trump was very authoritarian, so there's no real cause/effect you're implying. What Socialism aims to do is create a structure that society and business can operate so there's less of the dog-eat-dog, survival of the fittest, let the chips fall where they will type brutality we see in the USA. The USA its highly competitive and that often offsets the moral responsibility we have as civilized people. Socialism has a built-in moral framework that Capitalism completely lacks.

Its why its bad, any system whether its fascism or marxism or both.... bad bad bad. Any system that represses people`s viewpoints is just bad in a sense

fascism is bad, period. Marxism is too idealistic and doesn't allow for human failings.

That is why most developed nations have a compromised set of economic and social structures in place to help guide business and morality.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In the past, doctors recommended smoking. So just being authority figures on something doesnt make them right is all.

Sure... but the track record of ignorant people who just pull nonsense out of their butts is much, much worse.