you were gagging them earlier, — Isaac
It will hold out for eternity. I don't peddle the personal political opinions of some random folks here, nor any version of immunology, because I am not qualified, you are even less qualified, and this is a philosophy forum. It's written on top of the page.I'll bare in mind next time you cite anyone how strict a threshold you have for conflict of interest. We'll see how long that holds out. — Isaac
An example? — Isaac
https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/progressivism-is-deadThe policies that were pushed by the left were policies that shielded principally the zoom class of worker—the upper middle class, highly educated laborer. Among these: school closures. What will soon be seen as the greatest policy blunder of the pandemic; One that will scar the lives of hundreds of thousands of kids. This policy was pushed by left of center cities, and cities with strong teachers’ unions. Progressives forgot about the poorest amongst us, while red states remembered. ...
That was the original sin. Closing schools for so long in Democratic stronghold cities, strong union cities, precisely after the President that many disliked pushed for it. But no matter how wrong he was about other matters, he was right on that issue. We should have reopened schools. And the net result has been devastation so catastrophic it will shape this country for the next 100 years, if we survive it. The damage is done; time will reveal it.
I'm sure his academic articles on oncology — Olivier5
I never gagged anyone. — Olivier5
don't spread the unhelpful anti-science rhetoric of folks with an easily discernable political bias and no qualification in immunology. Thank you very much. — Olivier5
I don't peddle the personal political opinions of some random folks — Olivier5
nor any version of immunology — Olivier5
philosophy forum... — Olivier5
The guy knows shit about it, he is an oncologist.I'm talking about his articles on the covid response. — Isaac
What is unfair I think, would be to share a political cartoon as if it was the informed opinion of a specialist of the field being discussed. This is what you are doing with Prasad's cartoonish views. — Olivier5
The guy knows shit about it, he is an oncologist. — Olivier5
He is a cancer drug and health policy researcher. He also studies the financial conflicts in drug approvals.
The debate we're having (the one I'm having, anyway) is about whether my beliefs meet the threshold required of reasonableness. — Isaac
Just to clarify (not that it matters, but I don't want to cause confusion later) I'm a professor of Psychology, not English. English is my nationality (put in so you know whose rules and regulations I'm talking about). Of course whether Psychology is one of the sciences is a matter of much debate! — Isaac
That standard is that - evidence should come from suitably qualified experts in the appropriate field who have no discoverable conflict of interest or pre-existing bias directly favouring one result. — Isaac
do you have any insight into why you would gravitate towards this interpretation more than the other? — Xtrix
Firstly, in matters relating to the pharmaceutical industry majorities are often not indicative of true scientific consensus. — Isaac
I have what I believe to be good reason to be suspicious of the weight of opinion in favour of a pharmaceutical product. — Isaac
it is definitely enough to treat any apparent consensus with suspicion. — Isaac
Secondly, I have a personal bias against artificiality. — Isaac
when you say reasonable alternatives exist, what are you referring to?
— Xtrix
Natural immunity (testing for), full hygiene precautions (masks, distancing, hand-washing), regular testing (coupled with a willingness to isolate in the case of a positive test), and natural existing immune systems (for those who are healthier than average - only to be combined with the previous two). — Isaac
what of the millions who have no yet had COVID?
— Xtrix
As I said above, alternatives are not limited to acquired immunity. — Isaac
For (a) and (b) - most articles combine the two... — Isaac
For adults, the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination are enormous, while for children, they are relatively minor. — https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/05/07/covid-vaccines-for-children-should-not-get-emergency-use-authorization/
Given all these considerations, the assertion that vaccinating children against SARS-CoV-2 will protect adults remains hypothetical. — https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/07/13/covid-19-vaccines-for-children-hypothetical-benefits-to-adults-do-not-outweigh-risks-to-children/
But please link to the BMJ too.
— Xtrix
Sure - https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2101 — Isaac
I believe you have agreed with this, which is why the rest is a bit puzzling to me.
— Xtrix
See - the debate about children; the debate about long-term risks ("practically nothing is known about any long-term adverse effects..." - Professor Ruediger von Kries, of Germany's advisory vaccine committee), and the debate about trusting the pharmaceutical industry going forward (the GlaxoSmithKline contamination scandal) — Isaac
I think it's reasonable, yes. Ultimately inaccurate, but reasonable. — Xtrix
it turns out we're in the same field. — Xtrix
So let's restrict the argument only to companies or organizations that mandate vaccines (1) for individuals without acquired immunity and (2) without offering testing/precautions as an alternative. This seems to be the issue. — Xtrix
This then becomes an issue about (a) whether these alternatives, on their own (without vaccines), are as safe and effective at slowing the spread of the virus as (b) the vaccines are, either on their own or in combination with the masks/distancing/testing. — Xtrix
I'd like to separate the issue of children for the time being, as it's true there's not as much data on this as yet. I, as of yet, haven't read carefully or widely enough to have a strong opinion. If it turns out the risks of vaccinating children outweigh the benefits, then so be it. — Xtrix
I understand the sentiment but does this claim undermine the safety of the vaccines? I assume you think not, so I don't see the relevance.... — Xtrix
Governments and pharmaceutical companies have behaved appallingly in the past. Ignoring alternatives and vilifying experts who disagree with policy exacerbates existing suspicions, and risks a serious breakdown of the relationship essential to public health.
Basically, there's limits to what you can push people to accept and we'd be better off staying within those limits and accepting a small increase in risk as a result, than trying to push them and so doing taking a much larger risk from the breakdown of that relationship. — Isaac
So let's restrict the argument only to companies or organizations that mandate vaccines (1) for individuals without acquired immunity and (2) without offering testing/precautions as an alternative. This seems to be the issue.
— Xtrix
Agreed. — Isaac
It shouldn't matter if someone rejects the vaccine because they don't like the colour of the vial, so long as in doing so the risk they pose others is below a threshold of risk we consider acceptable for trivial personal preference. The less trivial that preference, the greater the threshold has to be to justify any mandate. — Isaac
For mandates (in the restricted cases we've already circumscribed) to be acceptable, they'd have to be both more safe and effective than the alternatives and be so to such an extent that the increased risk from not taking them exceeded this normal threshold. — Isaac
The trouble is that this threshold is a psychological feature, not a strict number. — Isaac
I don't think there's an easy solution to this — Isaac
If you indeed don’t know, then it’s responsible to be honest about it yes. — Xtrix
Beliefs don't require justifications because we've no idea what justification for any given myriad of beliefs there is. — I like sushi
Justification is really just a psychological analysis of what has happened and the degree to which one wishes to claim authorship over the actions that led to the result. — I like sushi
If a belief is fully justified in our minds then is it really a 'belief'? If it is then how does it differ from beliefs that possess little to no rational foundation? — I like sushi
Epistemic responsibility has to do with attempting to gain knowledge i.e. it's, at the end of the day, a way of sorting one's beliefs into knowledge and non-knowledge. — TheMadFool
I don't much care for the JTB view. — I like sushi
I'd rather not pretend my beliefs are anything but beliefs. Knowledge is for set discernable limits only (ie. abstract). — I like sushi
That said, I'm open to new ideas but they have to make sense at some level I suppose. Just sayin! — TheMadFool
1. a−b=ca−b=c
2. a=c+ba=c+b
3. a+(−b)=c+b+(−b)a+(−b)=c+b+(−b)
4. a+(−b)=c+0a+(−b)=c+0
5. a+(−b)=ca+(−b)=c
6. a−b=a+(−b)a−b=a+(−b)
QED — TheMadFool
Doesn't really matter. At the end of the day a 'belief' will overrule anything claimed by others to be 'known'. Nature will do as nature does regardless of what we call knowledge or belief. On top of that we're always going to lean towards justifying what we belief the most regardless of knowledge or we'd stagnate. — I like sushi
The above has nothing to do with JTB Mathematics is an abstraction and within an abstracted set limit knowledge is discernible. — I like sushi
In justified true belief the 'truth' is just an attitude/emotion and this is clear in the need to justify it. It is just a belief and the more 'truth' people have towards it the more they'll justify it even if it costs them to do so. — I like sushi
Justified is just to say not by luck. — I like sushi
The obvious argument — I like sushi
That's new. Sounds interesting but I'll stick with JTB if it's all the same to you. — TheMadFool
I don't have to justify my beliefs to you and you would be perfectly ok with that, right? — TheMadFool
Stick to the old ways then. It is an abstract theory set in an abstract realm that has some parallels to human life. the problem is if you apply it to language as if it is a mathematical model you're working within an unlimited world where the rules are unknown. So it doesn't hold up in real life as anything other than a simple belief like any other belief. It cannot justify itself in a true or believed way in the real world because we're oblivious to the limits and rules of the world. — I like sushi
Yes. If they interfere with mine/others though we may have to negotiate. That is basically how the world works so no biggie. — I like sushi
If people hold rigidly to an abstract rule as a way of living in the world and it works for them so be it. Generally I'm more inclined to disbelief when it comes to bringing the abstract into the realm of lived lives. — I like sushi
JTB isn't a JTB if the limits and rules are unknown. Within known bounds (necessarily abstract) I'm ok with the theory of JTB. — I like sushi
TO repeat. 'Truth' is an attitude more than anything else ... that is my belief. — I like sushi
But you leave out the specifics, the details and the devil, they say, is in the details. Last I checked, negotiations involved justifications/argumentations and when that failed, punches/kicks/bullets/bombs...you get the idea ("aggressive" negotiations). I hope you don't mean that by "negoitiations" — TheMadFool
So, the JTB is an abstract rule? I fail to see how that diminishes its value when it comes to knowledge and, possibly, other matters. — TheMadFool
Yep. JTB is JTB, as defined but it does have, like all things, limitations; I don't deny that. These limitations need to be known of course but there are situations in which the JTB is perfectly applicable/acceptable. — TheMadFool
Flesh that out for me, will ya? — TheMadFool
I was insisting that JTB must leave out the specifics to work flawlessly (see below) because it is only fully effective in an abstract realm.
I did mean all of the above in terms of 'negotiations'. In the real world claim of what is believed to be 'the truth' or 'justified' is often why violence can ensue. This is because each party thinks they own 'knowledge' rather than viewing knowledge as a tool used to lever individual beliefs that suit them. We're not robots.
The more important (the greater the value attached to the disagreement) the 'negotiation' the more likely the belief will bypass reasonable argumentation by sheer will. — I like sushi
Because with set abstract rules and limits we can differentiate between 'true' and 'false'. Outside of such set rules and limits (ie. real world situations where 'rules' and 'limits' are unknown) we cannot differentiate between 'true' and 'false' as we're not able to know anything for certain unlike in abstracted realms. Nature has a habit of showing us that what we took as a 'truth' here and there and in another place makes another 'truth' a mistake - too many variables/perspectives.
More simply put applying mathematical formula to the stock market will not guarantee profits only act as a tool to aid profits - that is diminished value. How diminished? Another layer of the problem cake. — I like sushi
Nothing to flesh out. — I like sushi
If you can't expand and elaborate your position nobody can and will take you seriously, right? — TheMadFool
Maybe not nobody, but very few. Because. — I like sushi
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.