if you're smarter than someone who has had decades more training and experience than you then what are you not smartest in? Challenging experts is always good if you're trying to learn something. But recognize who is probably right while you're learning.
This goes for everywhere
This goes for everywhere
the exception to this is when there's a mindshift involved. So when 5% disagree w/95%, one should look to see if the 5% are coming from a different place. If so, worth examing that diff. For example, Agile started out with a minority, but was based on different undrestanding
however, when two disparate groups are interpreting the same data with the same science and one side has 95% agreement, they are virtually always correct. When the 5% has been correct they've been able to make more accurate predictions as to what's going to happen.
i've been talking generallly here, but if you apply this to Covid and the environment, you'll see that the 95% have been making accurate predictions while the 5% have not.
cases of where small minority (or individuals were correct):
1) Semmelweis
2) Marconi
3) Mendel
4) Copernicus
5) Keppler
in all cases a new theory was introduced.
1) Semmelweis
2) Marconi
3) Mendel
4) Copernicus
5) Keppler
in all cases a new theory was introduced.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
