[mediumdeviation]

That's funny, because in 2014 the BBC was admonished by independent reviewers for giving too much airtime to climate change deniers under their 'too rigid' impartiality guidelines [1].

From the Telegraph [2]

> The BBC’s determination to give a balanced view has seen it pit scientists arguing for climate change against far less qualified opponents such as Lord Lawson who heads a campaign group lobbying against the government’s climate change policies. Andrew Montford, who runs the Bishop Hill climate sceptic blog, former children’s television presenter Johnny Ball and Bob Carter, a retired Australian geologist, are among the other climate sceptics that have appeared on the BBC.

I think I agree with the BBC's own comedian's take on this, which is to give each side time proportional to the amount of support they have from experts in the field. In other words, for every ten minutes of airtime for climate experts on climate change caused by humans, we can have 18 seconds, or 3% of climate skeptics speaking.

[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/0...

[2]: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10944629/B...

[sudojudo]

Asimov summed it up nicely:

Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'

[drzaiusapelord]

Except anti-intellectualism is hard to define. Not too long ago saying anything critical of communism got you put in re-education work camps for life, jailed, tortured, or killed in many countries. Now it just gets you downvotes from true believers. Afterall, communism was run by the intellectual class quoting Marx, and if you disagreed with Marx then you were an uneducated person.

Everyone thinks they're the intellectuals. Even the people prescribing thalidomide to pregnant women. A strong sense of skepticism should be encouraged, not mocked, and appeals to authority should be seen as invalid on their face.

[zanny]

It actually is not that complicated, at least on the "everyone thinks they are intellectuals". The moment you think you are so right you should be suppressing other peoples right to speak on the matter, you are immediately not the intellectual, you are just a tyrant.

[sageikosa]

I'd second the appeals to authority argument, if only on the grounds that science (the institution) is exactly that: an institution. It is also a game:

http://www.melconway.com/Urban_Teaching/pdf/what_is_science....

[sageikosa]

Publication has brought information to the masses; without providing a metric for its value.

[hueving]

To be fair, experts in a field that's whole existence is being criticized (e.g. saying modeling isn't accurate/whatever) shouldn't be given more weight in that regard.

Consider how many 'experts' there are in numerology. Should we restrict a person from speaking out against them because he/she isn't an expert?

[sageikosa]

Some might compare that to allowing atheists only a few micro-seconds to make the case for the non-existence of deities due to the overwhelming number of experts in the field of religion.

[bduerst]

Well, considering the scope of the world's religions and that it's a matter of opinion, it would be difficult to give anyone the floor for very long if we were using that metric (least of all atheists and anti-theists).

[sageikosa]

That's why I don't like the popularity metric. But that's what you get when you democratize too many things.

[mediumdeviation]

I would think you're too quick to dismiss the number of philosophers of religion, humanists and naturalists, many of whom are experts in the 'field' of religion, as you call it.

[sageikosa]

Against the numbers of bishops, swamis, gurus and imams?