And when experts disagree, it is informed disagreement, not at all like random people on the internet.
You are an idiot. An argument stands on it's own. Who presents arguments is wholly immaterial.
Obviously anyone remotely rational is going to go with b). Why? Because they trust that the people there are more likely to better care for you than a random person on the street. And why is that? Because they are experts.
This obviously isnt to say all experts are not knowledgeable, but theres plenty who are not and often they are in charge. Thats why taking their opinion as ultimate truth without question is dangerous.
> Thats why taking their opinion as ultimate truth without question is dangerous.
Agree. Which is why I explicitly stated:
> It doesn't mean you need to take what they say as gospel, so to speak, but it does mean that when the choice is to listen to 'random person on the internet' versus 'someone who has studied something for years and has made valued contributions to the field', the two-despite both having biases-are not on equal footing.
I'm sorry that it sounds like you have a shitty doctor. The solution is to find a better one, not to renounce doctors.
This is an absurd and false statement, and is a perfect summation of why so much mis/disinformation floats around and is so popular in today's online world.
Experts do indeed have their own inherent biases. This part is a glib truism because experts are people, and all people have biases which both consciously and unconsciously influence their decision making.
But that is not "just" what experts are. Experts are people who have, by definition, expertise in a given subject matter. Unless you too are an equal expert in a given topic, experts--once again by definition--know more than you do in that field.
It doesn't mean you need to take what they say as gospel, so to speak, but it does mean that when the choice is to listen to 'random person on the internet' versus 'someone who has studied something for years and has made valued contributions to the field', the two-despite both having biases-are not on equal footing.