Quote:
Originally Posted by irv
So, the opinion of a breast cancer surgeon, who has many other questionable opinions about medicine and the like, is to be taken as truthful, factual and therefore it's end of the story because he said so?
Just like some other response I heard sometime ago that the science is settled, you also believe this based on this one man's opinion?
Gotcha, Pete. 
"At the same time the academics admit, almost in a puzzled fashion, that these “anti-maskers” do their investigations in a very scientific manner. “Indeed,” the paper claims, “anti-maskers often reveal themselves to be more sophisticated in their understanding of how scientific knowledge is socially constructed than their ideological adversaries, who espouse naïve realism about the ‘objective’ truth of public health data.”
The MIT academics go on to admit that those opposed to masks are not afraid to get down and dirty in looking at statistics, nor are they afraid to increasingly question the media and government authorities, a trait MIT researchers call “a weaponization of critical thinking.” Even more surprising is the revelation that anti-maskers’ “approach to the pandemic is grounded in a more scientific rigor, not less.”
https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/...ally-rigorous/ |
Nice deflection Dale. You didn't read the article and cut and pasted an excerpt thinking it supported your point of view. Instead of admitting it, you pivot to your favorite tactic, the straw man. Where did I ever say I took Dr. Gorski as gospel? My point was that the article doesn't support your point of view.
And funny how when you thought Dr. Gorski was supporting your point of view YOU had no issue quoting him despite that he was a breast cancer surgeon. LOL. In fact, you were quoting Joseph Mercola, an extremely controversial alternative medicine osteopath who makes a fortune selling supplements.