So now you are arguing that some scientists are corrupt? Why do you feel the need to state the obvious? What is the point of your statements? Are you familiar with the concept of peer-review? Nobody should ever take someone at face value. But when a consensus is reached, it is worth some credibility...
Fair enough, but usually when someone mentions the word "right" or "left" into a thread, it usually veers off into a Obama vs. Bush piss fest.
Again, I think you are stating the obvious... Don't blindly trust government - check. Don't blindly trust preachers - check. Don't blindly trust the media - check. Don't blindly trust a scientist - check. Don't blindly trust ANYONE - check. Anyone capable of thinking independently already knows all of this. I don't think people blindly follow a scientist any more than they would blindly follow anyone else. Why you singled out scientists in this thread does not make sense to me. The thread should be about blindly following ANYONE, not just scientists.
Oh, I don't think this thread "should" be (dogmatic thinking there on your part with the should) about blind following in general, but if that is what the people want, they could post their own thread entitled: ANYONE blindly following ANYONE is wrong. I don't agree with that necessarily. The problem is more systemic than the blind following. We, by necessity have to trust so many people in our society today. We don't have the time and information not to have to trust, blindly at time. The thrust of my argument is that scientists are still given some elevated position in the minds of others. This is not a knock on the scientific method, or the political process, or any other reasonable system. With the blind followers of scientists though, is they think they are being scientific by blindly following scientists.
Why shouldn't we give these people elevated status? Someone who devotes their life to biology for instance, should be the person we turn to for biology questions...much in the same way that we would turn to say the US ambassador to Lithuania for questions about USA/Lithuanian relations. You aren't articulating your argument very well. From what I can tell, you are angry at people who believe what scientists tell them. But like I said, your point isn't very clear.
You understand, of course, that I was speaking in generalities rather than in absolutes. And although you may not like such generalities, your aversion to them does not make these generalities any less observable.
You make some valid points. But I don't think that any observations you make about Big Oil, Big Tobacco and Big Pharma necessarily translate to the generally accepted scientific thought regarding evolution by the world's most prominent scientists. I don't think there's big money in denying ID. And my initial impression, based on the pattern of your prior posts and threads rather than the specific wording of your initial post in this thread, was that this thread was motivated by your antipathy towards science becauses it dismisses ID.
You don't find anything wrong with generalizing anyone to the right of center? You don't see a distinction between say Stephen Harper and Bush? Look, I know you were speaking generally but you should qualify your statement when doing so. I take offense to being lumped in with many of the right-wingers that I don't agree with. But in any case, we are quite off topic in this thread. Let's move on.