The proper distinction between crackpot and scientist is the extent to which one can justify one's claims with proper scientific rigour, not the extent to which one's peers currently agree. — Isaac
Of course I’ve heard of the British Medical Journal but you could read that blog post not knowing that and be none the wiser at the end. — Wayfarer
the whole concept of objective fact is under challenge today, particularly in the USA. — Wayfarer
Anyone who considers themselves a scientist should be embarrassed by our collective failure to generate knowledge.... The CDC director calls this "following the science," but it is not. It is following the TV pundits. — Vinay Prasad - Associate Professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the University of California
peer review and agreement has to be part of it doesn’t it? If nobody can replicate or agree with a particular scientists findings, then how can they stand? — Wayfarer
I've written on this topic elsewhere, but my point here is about the misuse of "both-sidesing."
Our society is more and more incapable of debating real issues. We are not only certain of our positions, we view the clash of ideas as a threat. More than any specific issue, I am worried about people who are so fragile they cannot bear to hear opinions that conflict with their own. Calling real debates both-sidesing is a cognitive distortion.
The bottom line is this: the idea that your motivations are pure but those who disagree with you are tainted is a cognitive distortion. Revisit it.
There are two principles worth articulating. One, in emergency circumstances, states and other actors can institute untested interventions in the face of novel threats. But two, if these interventions continue or repeat, year after year, at some point, it is incumbent on the entity or person asserting the intervention to prove that the net benefits outweigh the harms.
An anecdote without a sober and methodical appraisal of data can lead to erroneous thinking. Social media abuses anecdotes in all directions: on issues I agree with and vehemently disagree with. But in both cases, I often think that emotional appeal of anecdotes is unfair -- even if it furthers a cause I like. We must make our case solely on the merits of the argument or policy.
Recently, Andy Slavitt wrote that many experts believe it is now inevitable that everyone will someday acquire SARS-CoV-2, and this was labeled a dangerous view.
If you think vaccinated people should isolate to avoid spreading SARS-CoV-2, then any idea that suggests they will get the virus eventually runs counter to your narrative. A person may wonder: Why should I continue to deprive myself if getting the virus is inevitable? (Note: this does not apply to an unvaccinated person who has a high risk of severe outcomes or death that would markedly fall if they were vaccinated.) The idea is only dangerous if you already assume that vaccinated people staying home is a good thing.
If instead, you think that vaccinated people should take reasonable precautions, but have to try to get back to life as much as possible because -- as they say, time's a-wasting -- then the idea that they may someday acquire SARS-CoV-2 and thankfully not get as sick as they otherwise would (after all they have been vaccinated) is not that dangerous. It is just a statement of what many experts believe.
A dangerous idea is too often used to describe an idea that erodes support for your policy recommendation. But using it in this way is a cognitive distortion.
It is fascinating how we have created party platforms out of COVID policy, with partisan splits over lockdowns, school closures, masks, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and the origins of the virus.
Why can't there be a mixing and matching of our pandemic views? Lockdowns require far more study, and we have no idea under what circumstances they may work. School closure is the most disruptive policy choice and should only be considered when approaching health systems failure. Masking is reasonable in some settings, but we need to run randomized studies to know exactly at what ages and in what scenarios. Ivermectin is being tested in several large ongoing randomized trials, but probably doesn't work. That's nothing against it specifically, just a statement of fact that most drug trials are negative. And, yes, let's put it to bed: hydroxychloroquine doesn't work for COVID. Finally, I have no idea if lab leak did or did not happen, but I do know that censoring debate on the topic was awful.
Being able to hold views that sometimes dovetail with your peers and colleagues, but not always, is the hallmark of independent thinking and appraisal of evidence. Instead I worry that even the professional classes -- folks with doctorates -- have devolved into tribal creatures lusting for blood when they see a view that falls outside their preferred platform.
It's tiring to go online and read the repeated calls for someone to be fired for something they may have said. Amazingly, often it is the first time I am learning that this person even exists!
you explicitly support your community's goal of reaching herd immunity; you just aren't willing to help -- at least not in the way you've been asked to. — Srap Tasmaner
maybe you could tell us what you've done to help advance the goal you've said you support. — Srap Tasmaner
If your answer is that the data suggest we'll reach herd immunity, and SARS-CoV-2 will join the other coronaviruses as endemic, without you ever getting vaccinated, that's a textbook case of the tragedy of the commons: your choice is for lots of other people to do their bit and for you to free-ride. — Srap Tasmaner
Had the results not been age adjusted, then your proper objection would have been that they weren't age adjusted, not the opposite, as you're arguing here. — Hanover
I'm not gaining anything at all from doing any of this. — Isaac
I could be a complete hypocrite and my argument's qualities remain undented. — Isaac
. My guess is that only at PhD level do you start realising what can be done by 'managing' your statistics, it changes the way one looks at data supposedly proving some point or other. That or we're all grumpy selfish bastards who no longer care because we're going to die soon anyway. — Isaac
No objections at all. I just asked since age adjustment is done for comparative purposes and involves at least one variable. The variable was not listed so the data incomplete. — Isaac
It's not obvious to me yet that the argument could be strengthened to require specifically that you get vaccinated, but it's not out of the question. I'll mull it over some more. — Srap Tasmaner
it would be more concerning if medical based PhDs were highly represented among the skeptics, but we just don't have that information. — Hanover
My guess is that only at PhD level do you start realising what can be done by 'managing' your statistics, it changes the way one looks at data supposedly proving some point or other. That or we're all grumpy selfish bastards who no longer care because we're going to die soon anyway. — Isaac
Of the 40,000 people who have died in Florida, there's bound to be a fair number of children who have lost parents. That'll hurt them a lot more than being made to stay at home during an epidemic.
The point is that herd immunity is a goal of yours, for whatever reason, whether you derive any benefit from it, whether you know you derive any benefit from it. It's a goal of yours; if something you want to happen happens, well, then you're getting what you want — Srap Tasmaner
You have decided that to reach this goal, of yours, lots of other people should do something, just not you. Hence you are free-riding. Or you're going down with the ship, if the goal is not reached, whatever. — Srap Tasmaner
expecting others to take steps to reach a goal of yours while taking no steps yourself is not okay, — Srap Tasmaner
Dimes to donuts it isn't epidemiologists. — Srap Tasmaner
You are 29.2 times more likely to be hospitalized if you contract Covid if you're not vaccinated. — Hanover
Actually most of the people I've cited opposed to the current policies are epidemiologists. Also my personal experience. It's primarily epidemiologists, statisticians, paediatrics, and the odd few economists. But that's primarily to do with who I'm hanging around with recently. Not much call for experimental physicists in my work! That would be some very long term risk planning! — Isaac
you treat as gospel an opinion poll posted on Facebook where people responded to questions and then self-identified their level of education? — Hanover
No. The unvaccinated hospitalised are 29.2 times more prevalent than the vaccinated hospitalised. Your likelihood would only be the same as the prevalence if hospitalisation/vaccination combinations were random, and we already know they aren't. See what I mean about statistics? — Isaac
I haven't relied on that poll for evidence of anything on which my arguments hinge. I only brought it up in response to others making equally spurious, unsupported claims about the intelligence level of the vaccine hesitant. I would not rely on it. — Isaac
And even should I accept your data as truthful, do you propose I shrug off the mountain of evidence being accumulated supporting the efficiency of the vaccine reducing the Covid symptoms just because 25% of the US PhDs express some hesitancy about its efficiency? — Hanover
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.