Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="zubenelgenubi" data-source="post: 4639652" data-attributes="member: 63706">So the issue is that businesses are paying experts to lobby for them. Ok. I can see a problem with that. But it&#039;s a fallacy to take an expert&#039;s word on anything anyway. It&#039;s called appeal to authority fallacy, just because a person is considered an expert doesn&#039;t mean their argument is correct. On the flip side, you have the ad hominem attack, just because someone is paid to say something doesn&#039;t mean It&#039;s wrong. Anyone who is not informed enough to evaluate an expert&#039;s testimony shouldn&#039;t be in a decision making role to begin with. The problem is, then, who gets to decide who is informed enough to be in a decision making position? I have no problem with saying lobbying needs to be fixed. The problem there, as you&#039;ve pointed out before, is free speech. You are free to state things in a purposefully misleading way, and you justify it by saying that you are fighting for good. At the same time, businesses are free to pay people to lobby for them, and they may even believe they are doing what&#039;s right. I assume you brought up the economics professors in response to the experts who authored and signed on to the Great Barrington Declaration, seemingly implying that they are corrupt and can&#039;t be trusted. I came across Professor Gupta work back in March, and I have found her to be highly competent. While we are on the subject of big business interfering with experts, you aren&#039;t concerned about the potential conflicts of interests with big pharma and a rushed vaccine, especially with Trump pushing them?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="zubenelgenubi, post: 4639652, member: 63706"] So the issue is that businesses are paying experts to lobby for them. Ok. I can see a problem with that. But it's a fallacy to take an expert's word on anything anyway. It's called appeal to authority fallacy, just because a person is considered an expert doesn't mean their argument is correct. On the flip side, you have the ad hominem attack, just because someone is paid to say something doesn't mean It's wrong. Anyone who is not informed enough to evaluate an expert's testimony shouldn't be in a decision making role to begin with. The problem is, then, who gets to decide who is informed enough to be in a decision making position? I have no problem with saying lobbying needs to be fixed. The problem there, as you've pointed out before, is free speech. You are free to state things in a purposefully misleading way, and you justify it by saying that you are fighting for good. At the same time, businesses are free to pay people to lobby for them, and they may even believe they are doing what's right. I assume you brought up the economics professors in response to the experts who authored and signed on to the Great Barrington Declaration, seemingly implying that they are corrupt and can't be trusted. I came across Professor Gupta work back in March, and I have found her to be highly competent. While we are on the subject of big business interfering with experts, you aren't concerned about the potential conflicts of interests with big pharma and a rushed vaccine, especially with Trump pushing them? [/QUOTE]

Verification