Also I want to point out that this all started on the Cause of Bias? thread, where @JonnyPitt wasn’t actually able to provide any valid examples of Richard & Vineeto being biased (and when this was pointed out to him, his reply was that he “didn’t really need to establish any examples” anyway (!!!)).
On the thread you proposed some theories of why Richard & Vineeto are biased – despite not providing any examples yourself:
And what’s your response to Richard posting an article and over 265 posts discussing climate change in general and the points in the article in particular, including posts from someone that actually did look into it deeply?
Yeaup… ignoring it all and just going with what the consensus says anyway, besides which saying that that person (that didn’t take the article on belief and faith and actually looked into the points thoroughly) has daddy issues[2]! Lol.
All this is to say that, it is not unreasonable that you wouldn’t just take it on belief and faith that Richard is right about global warming, just because he is Richard. Indeed, that would be silly. And you can certainly make the choice to go with a carefully pre-selected subset of the experts (ie those that agree with the consensus), despite some of the rather obvious evidence that the consensus is corrupted…
But, you cannot make that decision yet continue to say that Richard & Vineeto are biased and “lack sufficient critical thinking”!
In other words, not agreeing with the consensus is not evidence in and of itself of lack of critical thinking! The obvious example of this is actual freedom itself – which flies in the face of all consensus, yet clearly requires much critical thinking to be able to succeed in becoming free!
This doesn’t mean that when Richard & Vineeto disagree with the consensus, they are automatically / by default right… but it also doesn’t mean that they are automatically / by default wrong in doing so.
To show they are wrong you need to actually make a case, take something they actually say, show explicitly where it is wrong, engage in a discussion about it, etc.
You don’t have the time to do it – which is completely understandable, and indeed there’s no moral requisite for you to take the time and do it. But by choosing not to take the time and to just agree with the consensus by default, you also relinquish your capacity to make a valid assessment as to the level of bias Richard & Vineeto actually have. To say otherwise is simply not sensible!
I will finish this thought by pointing out that despite over 481 posts (261 on Cause of Bias? and 265 here) on the topic of bias in fully actually free people (both in general and focusing in on a particular topic), still nobody has provided a valid example of them being biased!
It’s not unlike the greenhouse effect – people keep believing it despite there being no evidence to support it!
It is all rather funny lol.
That is all for now.
Cheers,
Claudiu