Who do we look to for answers for things scientific? I guess the only qualified people would be scientists.
A scientist is basically somebody who has a science degree, followed up by a PhD after doing Masters. Many years of studying. Lots of academic knowledge. The PhD gives the person the "doctor" title, and is obtained doing a thesis - as far as I understand this thesis is done on a subject the PhD wannabee chooses.
The last sentence is what worries me. Many of these PhD wannabees have a fixed idea in their heads about the outcome of the subject they decide to research on. The whole thing starts with a bias, not an open mind as to the outcome of research analysis. Research entails gathering data, and then analysing it. The analysis should give you the correct conclusion - but seldom does. The data can often be read to mean different things, and normally the PhD fella will prove his own original theory correct.
You'll probably say how do you know, you're just a pleb who does not even have a degree. I'll tell you why. Life experience and common sense. Luckily I'm not that clever, so I have the ability to see beyond pure academics.
Examples that prove my point are things like climate change. Very highly qualified scientists, in the same fields, have completely different opinions on the same thing. Who are we meant to believe? Common sense tells me that the ones against the idea of climate change, are those who are sponsored by wealthy companies that are accused of being polluters. Their agenda is to prove the companies not guilty, so they choose to analyse data in such way as to prove their bosses are innocent. The academics proving there is climate change have no agenda, so I'll believe them rather.
In the medical field many new medicines are rejected by the mainstream scientists, one wonders if not to protect the interests of pharmaceutical companies.
Diets are the most abused thing by scientists. That so many people in the same field can have so many different point of views about what we should eat, is just ridiculous. Its just about a waste of time listening to any of them. So many opinions actually just confuse, to the point they don't just have no value, they actually are a danger to our health! I'll just stick to eating what makes me feel good, thank you very much.
A case I am aware of that had no bias, was a conservation issue at Sodwana Bay. Divers had found Crown of Thorns starfish on the coral reefs. ORI (Oceanographic Research Institute) and Parks Board scientists investigated and came up with conclusions as to how to deal with the matter. ORI was adamant that the starfish be eradicated before the reefs were destroyed. (These critters eat coral) The Parks Board was adamant it was a natural event, and must be let be. 180 degrees apart in opinion, same degrees, both PhD's. How do you decide? Who do you believe, the normal pleb who has to implement the management has to decide now, using the scientists advice and then throwing in common sense.
The moral of the story is its pointless accepting what any scientist says as fact. You simply have to look at as many opinions on a matter as possible, and decide which one makes sense. The only value scientists have is that they can collect data and analyse it for you in their own biased way. Its up to Johnny on the ground to implement the correct solution.
Holding thumbs the general choice ends up the correct one...