|
|
|
|
|
|
by JoeAltmaier
1490 days ago
|
|
|
Was her knowledge and familiarity with the subject better than Reagans? Maybe that's why he believed her. She knew some of the societal costs (being a world leader) and some of the science too. Ad Hominem? Makes me a lot irritated, folks claiming that no degree of education is quite enough to understand whatever science they disagree with. |
|
|
Based on my memory of Regan and a quick review of his educational achievements, I'd say you're probably right.
> Maybe that's why he believed her.
World leaders don't usually take scientific advice from people with just a bachelor's degree. Especially when said world leader is the head of a government that has multiple world-class national laboratories, a space agency, and employs tens of thousands of highly qualified scientists. If Thatcher influenced Regan's thinking on the ozone hole then I suspect it's because he recognised her as a fellow social conservative, not because of anything she might have been able to say about the catalysis of O3 to O2.
> She knew some of the societal costs (being a world leader) and some of the science too.
As a prime minister who famously stated in public that "there is no such thing as society", and who presided over the miner's strikes, I find it hard to believe that she knew much about "societal costs".
> Ad Hominem? Makes me a lot irritated, folks claiming that no degree of education is quite enough to understand whatever science they disagree with.
That's not what ad hominem means. I wasn't taking issue with her character (I never knew her), I was taking issue with her (as a public figure with political policies) being factually described as a "scientist" who did "research".