Imagine you're trapped in a small town surrounded by a forest fire
You were just passing through. You’re with two friends. The first friend is familiar with the town, having visited on a number of occasions. The second friend, like you, has never been here before. Now you’re lost in the smoke and the fire is closing in.
Assuming your safety is not guaranteed, and the advice of either friend could potentially get you killed:
Which friend do you trust to get you out of there?
The friend who has experience and direct knowledge of the area, and can recognize landmarks to help guide you out? Or the friend who has no idea where he is or where to go?
It’s common sense. You’d have to be crazy to throw your lot in with the second friend. Right?
People should use that same common sense and listen to the advice of scientists.
Scientists aren’t going to get things 100% right every single time, but you’re going to get better advice, more of the time, than you would from laymen. Scientists make educated guesses based on hard data collected from the most rigorous tests they can think of at the time. And when they get something wrong, they publicly correct themselves. Why would anybody want to dismiss their opinions out of hand?
Yet it seems so many people would prefer to escape a burning town on the advice of a friend who’s never been there, has no clue where to go, and anyway it doesn’t really matter because the flames probably aren’t as dangerous as they look, and we should go get some sandwiches from that nearby gas station. I guess that guy just tells it like it is.
Worse still, the forest fire allegory as told above isn’t even accurate. The truth is, you’re trapped in a burning town with two friends. The first friend knows what to do and where to go to get you out alive.
The second friend would happily watch you burn to death if it meant he could pry the gold teeth out of your skull.
Go with the first friend.
Biden 2020.
= new reply since forum marked as read
