Science and the '2 versus 1' debates

[leighcgilbert]

The 21st century will see the rise of the '2 versus 1' debates, wherein the supposedly 'impartial' host of a debate appears to take sides, hence what should be a '1 versus 1' debate becomes '2 versus 1'. The main reason for this is that the host/chairman is adopting a supposedly scientific stance due to the increasingly dominant role of science as we move towards a science based dictatorship. I am not opposed to science and 'experts', providing they are genuinely expert with genuine scientific facts, but science has always been corrupted by Politics and Business and Religion. A good way of telling a lie or of winning an argument is to get a 'trusted expert' to deliver the lie or to make the argument, e.g. the famed physicist Stephen Hawking was deemed an 'expert' on the Brexit debate according to the British PM David Cameron who recruited Hawking for his 'remain' campaign.

2 versus 1 debates tend to occur when one side appears to have the support of science, or at least the support of the 'science consensus'. Note- a consensus of opinion is not a science fact. There are plenty of examples of the scientific consensus getting it wrong. 'Soft science', as opposed to 'Hard Science', is so-called because scientific proof is harder to come by, e.g. psychology and any study of human behaviour.

I saw a 2 versus 1 debate on the BBC's news channel - to be precise - the current affairs show "The Victoria Derbyshire Show", in which the dangers of immunisation were debated. You won't be surprised to hear that the BBC host (not Victoria Derbyshire, but a replacement) adopted the view of the 'scientific consensus' that immunisation was basically safe, hence the host constantly interrupted the anti-immunisers to tell them their views weren't factual or weren't aligned with the stance of the World Health Organisation. The pro-immuniser didn't have to argue much because the BBC host did her arguing for her!

The 'centre ground' of Politics is increasingly adopting a more science based approach, independent from opinions. Political 'Think Tanks' are also keen to promote their supposed independence from any particular party or philosophy, e.g. MARY ANN SIEGHART, chairman of the 'centrist' think tank, the SOCIAL MARKET FOUNDATION, boasted of its' independence from political parties. Sieghart has been a newspaper journalist. She presented a BBC Radio 4 program: "Can The Centre Hold?"

In the future, opinions will be shunned, maybe even outlawed if they challenge the official view. You can read this article in the Media section of my website:https://thegreatworkdecoded.com

[andy1033]

Originally Posted by leighcgilbert

In the future, opinions will be shunned, maybe even outlawed if they challenge the official view.

I do not agree.

I just think if you want to speak on something, at least know something about it. If your listening to someone, and you have no knowledge on it, your far more likely to be conned.

Whether you like it or not, there is a lot of deceit in this world.

People are entitled to speak on what they want, but for me anyway, i would advise people to be far more sceptical of areas of information where you have no knowledge.

The internet will always be a gossip column in effect, govs cannot really change that. Plus who is to say experts are right, plenty of times they are wrong.

[leighcgilbert]

The former BBC News Editor (Business and Economics) ROBERT PESTON proposed on BBC Radio in 2018 that experts (including himself) should accompany all debates and should end each debate by judging which side of the argument has the best evidence. In that case, why have the debate in the first place if it's going to be settled by supposed experts? He expressed his opinion in "Economics 101" (BBC Radio 4, 27th July 2018) when he also hosted the ITV Political discussion show PESTON ON SUNDAY and was ITV News Political Editor.

[leighcgilbert]

The 'experts' appear to be withdrawing to the side lines of debates as 'impartial' judges, to be replaced by the supposedly ignorant 'non-experts' who will get some limelight for a change, but only to expose their ignorance and to portray them as biased and closed-minded. If the 'experts' have the answers, then perhaps it would be better if they committed themselves more fully to one side of a debate, rather than pretending to remain aloof and impartial.

[mannybash]

In the past it seemed as though a crazy level of proof was needed to put forward a new scientific theory. As if some hidden power was wanting to hold back humanity. Two or more decades ago the concept of cold fusion was suggested only to be dismissed almost certainly because it would cost big business loads of money. Now when reading where did the towers go by Dr. Judy wood about the twin towers the concept seems to have come up again but called something different

[leighcgilbert]

You won't see me on the new forum so here is the link to my website again https://thegreatworkdecoded.com