A lot of the top answers seem to all claim you need a PhD to be capable of comprehension of anything, because it's all just too complex for anyone else. A lot of this stuff couldn't be further from the
There's the saying "it's not rocket science" as if rocket science is totally incomprehensible, but even then it's not. Generally, rocket science is nothing more than fairly simple Newtonian physics. Could someone with a high school level understanding of that get a simplified idea of rocket trajectories? Sure, no problem. Would they be qualified to figure out and calculate a plan to orbit the moon, of course not.
Then you get to a lot of this virus crap. It's statistics, also a rather simple form of math. You don't need to be capable of developing a vaccine from scratch to understand that the risk factors of the vaccines for many age groups outweighs the risk of serious complications from the virus itself. Because the data is there and it's not all that difficult to look at.
I could go on and on for points of things that "the science" has demanded that doesn't stand up to basic logic and critical thinking. Greater knowledge and understanding of the specific field doesn't supersede this logic, it should supplement it. It's like if I constructed a very flimsy bridge out of glue and old newspaper and declared that it was stronger than steel and concrete, I'm an engineer you have to trust me as you couldn't possibly understand. Except it doesn't make sense at all--so at the very least some skepticism is valid.
But yeah, all my ranting and I don't think this all important critical thinking even exists amongst leftists anyway.
And a lot of what's confusing is understanding the jargon if it's in an unfamiliar field, and what all the symbols represent.
One of the first things I do when I start reading up in an unfamiliar area is create a glossary of terms and symbols, so I can actually understand what I'm reading.
That's not entirely true even if it has that effect. It can be useful to convey a lot of information to people with comparable expertise in a concise way.
If I'm talking to colleagues I use it. If I'm not or I'm not sure, I don't. Issue comes when people aren't able to say what they mean without using the jargon. Sadly those people exist.
Patent jargon, on the other hand, is supposed to scare you off. Even patent lawyers have trouble decoding that shit.
A lot of the top answers seem to all claim you need a PhD to be capable of comprehension of anything, because it's all just too complex for anyone else. A lot of this stuff couldn't be further from the
There's the saying "it's not rocket science" as if rocket science is totally incomprehensible, but even then it's not. Generally, rocket science is nothing more than fairly simple Newtonian physics. Could someone with a high school level understanding of that get a simplified idea of rocket trajectories? Sure, no problem. Would they be qualified to figure out and calculate a plan to orbit the moon, of course not.
Then you get to a lot of this virus crap. It's statistics, also a rather simple form of math. You don't need to be capable of developing a vaccine from scratch to understand that the risk factors of the vaccines for many age groups outweighs the risk of serious complications from the virus itself. Because the data is there and it's not all that difficult to look at.
I could go on and on for points of things that "the science" has demanded that doesn't stand up to basic logic and critical thinking. Greater knowledge and understanding of the specific field doesn't supersede this logic, it should supplement it. It's like if I constructed a very flimsy bridge out of glue and old newspaper and declared that it was stronger than steel and concrete, I'm an engineer you have to trust me as you couldn't possibly understand. Except it doesn't make sense at all--so at the very least some skepticism is valid.
But yeah, all my ranting and I don't think this all important critical thinking even exists amongst leftists anyway.
Agreed. While a lot of science is quite difficult, it's worth just reading the damn papers and comparing the data to the conclusions.
It's really not too bad even for laymen. It's just a bit confusing until you get used to it.
And a lot of what's confusing is understanding the jargon if it's in an unfamiliar field, and what all the symbols represent.
One of the first things I do when I start reading up in an unfamiliar area is create a glossary of terms and symbols, so I can actually understand what I'm reading.
The jargon is supposed to scare you off. They are degenerate clerics in white robes speaking dog latin.
That's not entirely true even if it has that effect. It can be useful to convey a lot of information to people with comparable expertise in a concise way.
If I'm talking to colleagues I use it. If I'm not or I'm not sure, I don't. Issue comes when people aren't able to say what they mean without using the jargon. Sadly those people exist.
Patent jargon, on the other hand, is supposed to scare you off. Even patent lawyers have trouble decoding that shit.