Anonymous ID: bc2b40 Aug. 20, 2020, 4:05 p.m. No.10363174   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>3263 >>3303

>>10362879

From the article

>Let’s start with a simple, low-stakes example: fluoridated drinking water. On the one hand, fluoride is a simple ion that shows up in various concentrations, including naturally through calcium fluoride, in bodies of water all across the world. When humans ingest too little of it, particularly at a young age, it leads to weakened tooth enamel and greater rates of cavities; when humans ingest too much of it, it leads to tooth discoloration and various severities of dental fluorosis. In extreme cases, significantly too much or too little fluoride can also lead to other problems, such as osteoporosis (with too little) or skeletal fluorosis (with too much).

Anonymous ID: bc2b40 Aug. 20, 2020, 4:13 p.m. No.10363263   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>10363174

>>10362879

 

>It’s part of why scientific consensus is so remarkably valuable: it only exists when the overwhelming majority of qualified professionals all hold the same consistent professional opinion.

>scientific consensus

what the fuck

 

>It’s absolutely foolish to think that you, a non-expert who lacks the very scientific expertise necessary to evaluate the claims of experts, are going to do a better job than the actual, bona fide experts of separating truth from fiction or fraud.

 

>But that requires a kind of transformation within yourself. It means that you need to be humble, and admit that you, yourself, lack the necessary expertise to evaluate the science before you. It means that you need to be brave enough to turn to the consensus of scientific experts and ask, legitimately, what we know at the present stage.

>humble and brave

virtue signaling at its finest

Anonymous ID: bc2b40 Aug. 20, 2020, 4:21 p.m. No.10363351   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>10363303

I agree.

Complete article is about sucking "consensus" dick and denying your own capacity to understand. Being "brave" and humble" enough to accept what "Scientists" tell you.