Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:45 am
On Monday, January 7, 2019 at 3:44:48 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 02:39:41 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd_at_gmail.com
On Tuesday, January 1, 2019 at 9:09:57 AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
The problem is that in many important fields, the experts are mostly
As stated before, I don't understand why you think that. Name two fields,
and tell us who you consider 'experts', and why they're wrong.
Economics, Nobel Prize winners get everything wrong.
> Nutrition, where the theories swing wildly.
Nutrition - or the sort you read about in the publications you read - isn't a science but a mode of marketing.
Expert drivers, for instance, rarely get lost or go the wrong way on a one-
Some people, like drivers and engineers, get fast feedback if we are
wrong, so we learn or find another job. Some areas of study have no
useful feedback and are dominated by academic group-think.
No useful feedback that John Larkin understands.
Paleontology gets its feedback from digging up new fossils (or sticking old fossils in tomographic scanners that exploit what used to be the Standford Linear Accelerator to generate X-rays hard enough to get through rock).
The academic group-think there is pretty useful, even if it doesn't suite the creationists that John Larkin seem to favour (though he may not realise that they are creationists).
Bill Sloman, Sydney