Opinions don't equal facts

While all opinions have the right to be held, it is demonstrably an utter nonsense to claim they are all are equal in credibility, gravatos or real value. The problem I have with Most of the Media commentators is that they are NOT SCIENTISTS much less Specialists and do NOT use Scientific methods i.e. look at the facts and goe where THEY lead. Rather they tend to use what is know as Motivated Reasoning ( i.e. start with a conclusion and pick/seek evidence that supports their predetermined emotionally based opinion) and techniques to discount inconvenient facts. One thing the general public, arm-chair experts,non practising scientific researchers in the discussed specialization and the media generally is that they all are there for other purposes than COMPLETE and ACCURATE INFORMATION. The commercial media is about supporting their business model, to make profit (the point of any commercial business) then there are the proselytes those whose role it to gain converts to a political party, ideology or religion. All of there have the mindset to gain followers. In order to achieve these ends they lie (by omission) or spin (distort the real known facts) NB opinions ARE NOT FACTS. As someone who was involved (albeit peripherally )with complex research (involving multiple disciplines) then, seeing what journalists and personalities said/wrote, I was constantly dismayed how distorted their utterances were. By stripping the context and conditions/caveats out for simplicity (general readability/interest provocation) and allowing their sensationalising or bias to permeate the resultant opinions were distorted at best, misleading if not inconsistent with the factual observed results or downright rubbish at worst. Likewise both the real extrapolated conclusions and those of the commentator were rarely consistent. Put it simply I've read extensively on brain science, neuro-psychology and surgery, but for me to then to preform surgery or challenge an expert in the field would be ludicrous. 10+ years of intense training, years of hands on experience, tops any of the above commentariat hands down. Lets get real the days of the polymath the alleged genius of old are LONG gone. The science knowledge involved in some areas today is so involved, complex sophisticated and specialised that it is impossible for a general science qualification like mine (some 26years old) to be even half way sufficient to second guess with areas of research etc of today. Simply put most of these specialisations and researched knowledge, even information techniques/ tools didn't exist when I gained my qualifications. One simply can't be up to the mark in all fields/specialisations. (Moore's Law turbo-ed and on speed) One recent Science Nobel laureate (tongue firmly in his cheek) stated in a speech that because of his award he was qualified to talk on any scientific topic (paused for and got laughter). The relevance here is that the specialist knowledge is so fine and nuanced that it's true import can't be accurately 'dumbed down' for the inexperienced to dispute intelligently/meaningfully. Much Academic debate over presented papers is on methodologies and statistical analysis and their significances. The commentariat generally hasn't or can't be engaged at this level. So what hope the average man understanding the significance or relevance of say a dissenting paper. In short they tend to see thing in black or white perspective WHICH IT ISN'T. I have no problem with opinions HOWEVER, I do object strenuously when that OPINION is proselyted as an Absolute truth. P.S. I never claim Authority on anything but myself. I simply add information. The emotion(belief) is up to the reader.