That's why it's important to be able to gather as much information as you can and make the best bigger picture of it as you can. I try doing that in my roundups.
Rejecting everything from what you don't want to hear is folly.
And you might know the weather for the days you were there. But that's meaningless for the next days or the same days the next year. You need more information to give someone an meaningful answer.
Rejecting something someone dosnt want to hear is basically promoting ignorance, but at what point does someone get the label conspiracy theorist?
Listening to experts for predictions might be ok but who gets to decide who and which experts to listen to?
At some point
That's why it's important to be able to gather as much information as you can and make the best bigger picture of it as you can.
One of the ways to do that is to
I can speak for what I hear from live people, read 1st hand info and witness myself,
Abvisiosly, using the scientist coumo used wont get us into the right place.
Is it justified if it’ll save hundreds of thousands of lives?
Shutting someone down because someone thinks the other is wrong doesn't create any good but to the contrary, it promotes real conspiracy theories.
Who gets to decide what's right and his actions are going to be saving lives? Maybe it's the other person? They are thinking the same but from the opposite perspective.