To TheMadFool
I can accept the notion that good leaders do not really exist in an eternal state, therefore when interpreting the following statement take good as meaning as good as possible for leadership.
On your statement that we should like good leaders because they are dedicated to our welfare, are you implying that individuals can identify intuitively if a candidate for some kind of office is good for it? People can easily be deluded and not realise that one man is concerned about welfare and another is not. Of course I think the best criticism here is that I would need evidence for this statement. — Aristocles

I'm saying it doesn't matter whether we elect Pop Idols, Super Models, or Action Stars or not. They're either as bad as or as good as any possible good leader, the main aim of democracy being to roadblock the good leader from metamorphosing into a Dear Leader.

I see now, in a vague way, why people prefer democracy; it's got a sound foundation, one built on a true understanding of human nature. Any other system of government has conditions that favor Dear Leaders and that we know is only a matter of when and not if without democracy.

I wonder though how this fits into what I was saying about needing schools for leaders. Is it possible to make someone immune to the temptations of power and wealth, a necessity if anyone is to qualify as a good leader? I guess it's too much to ask.

pseudo-technical garbage — Isaac

What would there be wrong with e.g. Coq?

Coq is a formal proof management system. It provides a formal language to write mathematical definitions, executable algorithms and theorems together with an environment for semi-interactive development of machine-checked proofs. Typical applications include the certification of properties of programming languages (e.g. the CompCert compiler certification project, the Verified Software Toolchain for verification of C programs, or the Iris framework for concurrent separation logic), the formalization of mathematics (e.g. the full formalization of the Feit-Thompson theorem, or homotopy type theory), and teaching. — Mission statement of the Coq proof assistant

It is an excellent tool to verify mathematical theorems with their proof. It is clearly the benchmark for mechanical verifiability of claims. Other tools or procedures can merely aspire to attain that level of fitness for purpose. As I have mentioned before, you cannot expect tools for verifying pharmaceutical paperwork to be at that level.

its not possible to personally verify either of the rival claims (which is what I'd already said) — Isaac

As I have said already, it depends on what exactly it is about. Let's pick an arbitrary example from the drugs.com database: Methimazole.

Generic Name: methimazole (me THIM a zole)
Brand Name: Tapazole, Northyx

Let's pick an arbitrary Indian generic alternative: "Methimez from Sun contains Methimazole."

Next step: Figure out prices for Tapazole and/or Northyx in North America.
Next step: Check what Methimez costs in India and other countries with a relatively free market in pharmaceuticals.

Sun Pharmaceuticals is the largest pharmaceutical company from India and the fifth largest specialty generic company in the world. It has capabilities across dosage forms like injectables, sprays, ointments, creams, liquids, tablets and capsules. Its businesses include producing generics, branded generics, speciality, over the counter (OTC) products, anti-retrovirals (ARVs), Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs) and intermediates in the full range of dosage forms. It also produces specialty APIs. US formulations contributed the most to company’s US$ 4 billion sales in FY18 with a contribution of 34 per cent, followed by India branded formulations at 31 per cent. — IBEF record for Sun Pharmaceuticals in Uttar Pradesh, India

Now, that is already quite a reasonable starting point for the Indian generic, Methimez, and its manufacturer, Sun Pharmaceuticals in Uttar Pradesh.

One cheap and easy procedure would be to double check in how many different countries their Methimez product has been certified for local distribution. Each of these certifications will have a laboratory reports available. Many countries put their reports online. Some countries do not test by themselves but just reuse the test reports produced by other countries. Then, you have independent laboratories doing their own tests. And so on.

What makes you believe that the paperwork for Tapazole and/or Northyx would indicate that these branded alternatives would be safer to use than Methimez (the Indian generic)? As I have said already, we would need to dig up all the paperwork, scrutinize it thoroughly, and discover the proper procedure to verify it, while doing that. It is a lot of work.

Furthermore, I am much more interested in dealing with mathematical theorems than with this kind of stuff. I would only investigate all that paperwork, if I really needed to use the product. I don't. I do not intend to use this otherwise arbitrarily-chosen product, "Methimez", because I do not need it.

What of the idea of a true leader? Have you ever encountered anyone that fits the description? There must be a couple of such people out there somewhere. — TheMadFool

Lenin and Hitler come to mind in recent political history. Their goals were wrong, but boy they could lead.

A quart of 18 percent cream for $1.99 comes to mind. It's a loss leader.

What would there be wrong with e.g. Coq? — alcontali

It's a tool for mathematical theorms. Hence it is pseudo-technical to suggest it could apply outside of mathematics. Unless someone in a technical field has made that connection.

Let's pick an arbitrary example from the drugs.com database: Methimazole. — alcontali

Whom you'd have to trust to be providing you with the correct information.

IBEF record for Sun Pharmaceuticals — alcontali

Whom you'd have to trust to be providing you with the correct information.

double check in how many different countries their Methimez product has been certified for local distribution. — alcontali

Where you'd have to trust the certification system.

Each of these certifications will have a laboratory reports available. — alcontali

Whose processes and integrity you'd have to take on trust.

What makes you believe that the paperwork for Tapazole and/or Northyx would indicate that these branded alternatives would be safer to use than Methimez (the Indian generic)? — alcontali

Nothing. I don't trust the manufacturer of any medicine these days. Every pharmaceutical company has maximising profits for its shareholders as their primary motivation. That's not conspiracy theory, its written in their legal documents. So every product they produce will be the one which maximises their profits. If it also cures you, that's little more than a coincidence.

What I objected to is your demented anti-western bias making out that Indian companies are going to be any better than the Western ones. If Western companies are bumping up prices by some illicit means, then the Indian company is probably cutting prices by some equally illicit means. Screwing the consumer to make money is not an activity confined to Western markets.

we would need to dig up all the paperwork, scrutinize it thoroughly, and discover the proper procedure to verify it, while doing that. — alcontali

We cannot do that without trust. You're acting as if we can eliminate empirical data somehow and somehow derive knowledge without it. Somewhere along the line we'd have to include empirical data the gathering of which we were not personally involved in.

All this of course is assuming we trust our own faculties more than others even if we could somehow do all the experiments ourselves. I for one would rather trust what an experienced lab technician said happened than what I think I saw.

It's a tool for mathematical theorms. Hence it is pseudo-technical to suggest it could apply outside of mathematics. Unless someone in a technical field has made that connection. — Isaac

I was talking about tools to verify the paperwork of a claim. The ideal is something like Coq, but it only works for mathematical paperwork. Furthermore, you need to follow a particular procedure to make it work. First and foremost, you must encode the mathematical claim in the tool's language.

Concerning pharmaceutical claims, you also end up with all kinds of paperwork, and therefore, with a procedure to verify that paperwork. No matter how good the tool for verifying such paperwork, it will never attain the level of accuracy of something like Coq. One reason already, is that the paperwork will be about experiment test reports. These test reports, if conducted correctly, can only be held against other test reports, assuming that they even exist; unless you want to do the tests again. The data will be of falsificationist nature. That is not as solid as data about reasoning from first principles. That alone will be already a problem.

We were discussing how to verify and/or compare information. As I have mentioned already, it will not be that simple to do, and we will have to discover the details of a workable procedure for that purpose.

Whom you'd have to trust to be providing you with the correct information. — Isaac

drugs.com is a database with mostly definitions (well, the part that I have used). Definitions can be corroborated with definitions from other databases. For example: "Tapazole, Northyx, and Methimez are said to contain Methimazole." That is some kind of master metadata that is not really in doubt.

Another piece of information is what Methimazole is used for:

What is methimazole? Methimazole prevents the thyroid gland from producing too much thyroid hormone. Methimazole is used to treat hyperthyroidism (overactive thyroid). It is also used before thyroid surgery or radioactive iodine treatment. — drugs.com on methimazole

That is a witness deposition. There will be other knowledge databases asserting this information. It may be possible to maybe even get hold of databases with the clinical-trial information that backs this claim. It depends on whether you believe that this information is in doubt. It certainly could be. That wouldn't be the first time anyway.

Where you'd have to trust the certification system. ... Whose processes and integrity you'd have to take on trust. — Isaac

All of that is still backed by experimental test reports. I do not need to trust the certification. I corroborate their reports with the reports from other certification parties.

What I objected to is your demented anti-western bias making out that Indian companies are going to be any better than the Western ones. — Isaac

I have never said that they would be "better". In my experience, however, they certainly tend to be cheaper.

If Western companies are bumping up prices by some illicit means, then the Indian company is probably cutting prices by some equally illicit means. — Isaac

Bumping up the price in the North American market is a known process. The pharma oligarchy simply manages to dramatically restrict competition and hence gauge prices. The oligarchy is tremendously being helped by the FDA through regulatory capture.

Regulatory capture (also client politics) is a corruption of authority that occurs when a political entity, policymaker, or regulatory agency is co-opted to serve the commercial, ideological, or political interests of a minor constituency, such as a particular geographic area, industry, profession, or ideological group[1].[2] When regulatory capture occurs, a special interest is prioritized over the general interests of the public, leading to a net loss for society. — Wikipedia on regulatory capture

FDA Depends on Industry Funding; Money Comes with 'Strings Attached'. The system at the FDA is 'unique in the degree to which industry sets the terms of the agenda,' said Daniel Carpenter, a Harvard professor of government who has published work on the FDA and on 'regulatory capture,' a process by which special interests gain influence over their regulators. — Project On Government Oversight on Regulatory Capture of FDA

The reason why the North American pharma oligarchy can strip their customers clean is because it is them who make the rules. The Indian generics vendors cannot do that. Therefore, they cannot extort a regulatory-capture premium from their customers.

We cannot do that without trust. You're acting as if we can eliminate empirical data somehow and somehow derive knowledge without it. Somewhere along the line we'd have to include empirical data the gathering of which we were not personally involved in. — Isaac

Yes, possibly, depending on the procedure that you wish to implement. Redoing the experiment testing may be prohibitively expensive. But then again, there is no way to know without looking at existing test reports. As I have said before, we would have to discover the details of the procedure to follow, "as we are going". Furthermore, there could be other parties interested in a report on redoing the experimental testing. Maybe they would help paying for it. Maybe crowdfunding amongst patients would be possible. It is not possible to know what to do without first getting your feet wet.

I for one would rather trust what an experienced lab technician said happened than what I think I saw. — Isaac

The problem is not the experienced lab technician. That kind of fraud is rarely perpetrated at such a low level. It is more about C-level executives doctoring the reports by cooking their conclusions. That is, for example, what happened at Purdue Pharma, when they cooked the results of the clinical-trial testing and triggered the opioid crisis in the USA:

In 2007, it paid out one of the largest fines ever levied against a pharmaceutical firm for mislabeling its product OxyContin, and three executives were found guilty of criminal charges.[3][4] — Wikipedia on Purdue Pharma

Opioid Crisis. The Nation is in the midst of an unprecedented opioid epidemic. More than 130 people a day die from opioid-related drug overdoses. — USA/HRSA administration on opioid crisis

The problem is really not about the small guy or about lab technicians. The problem is about how the pharma oligarchy manages to write the laws and then contort their application, while killing an increasingly large number of their customers in the process.

It depends on whether you believe that this information is in doubt. It certainly could be. — alcontali

Yeah, that's the whole point. You can't escape from forming a simple gut belief about whether some data is worth doubting. You talk about databases and multiple corroboration, but that's exactly the procedure used to justify the experts you earlier decried. Their knowledge bases is accesed and tested multiple times by multiple individuals and their status as an expert is maintained by their ability to provide functioning solutions each time (or at least mostly). An expert engineer has built multiple bridges for multiple clients. His expertise in bridge-building has been corroborated in exactly the same way you're now suggesting we can do with databases.

I have never said that they would be "better". In my experience, however, they certainly tend to be cheaper. — alcontali

Yes, but to advocate them, you need to trust that they are at least not worse, ie that no corners have been cut in order to secure that lower price. How can you possibly know that?

Bumping up the price in the North American market is a known process. — alcontali

Lowering the price by using lower quality materials, quality and safety checks, and worse manufacturing techniques is also a known process, so I don't see where this gets you so far as choosing between the two is concerned.

The problem is really not about the small guy or about lab technicians. The problem is about how the pharma oligarchy manages to write the laws and then contort their application, while killing an increasingly large number of their customers in the process. — alcontali

I'm not talking about where the problem with the pharmaceutical industry lies, I'm in almost complete agreement with you about that. I'm talking about where the problem with any alternative might lie. Companies producing cheap knock-offs are motivated by exactly the same greed as the big companies. They have exactly the same ability to extort and manipulate laws (albeit more likely with bribes than lobbying), they have exactly the same c-level management).

It's not your assessment of the problem I take issue with, it's your assessment of the solution.

politics are a large scale appeals to emotion, not reason.

Yes, but to advocate them, you need to trust that they are at least not worse, ie that no corners have been cut in order to secure that lower price. How can you possibly know that? Lowering the price by using lower quality materials, quality and safety checks, and worse manufacturing techniques is also a known process, so I don't see where this gets you so far as choosing between the two is concerned. — Isaac

The cost of producing drugs is not in manufacturing:

'Profiteering'. With some drugs costing upwards of $100,000 for a full course, and with the cost of manufacturing just a tiny fraction of this, it's not hard to see why. — BBC News on cost of manufacturing in pharma

The manufacturing cost per unit produced in pharma is very much like for software, books, music, and movies: very low to nonexistent.

Therefore, it is not even worth saving money on the production process. The prices do not reflect manufacturing cost but other things:

Drug companies justify the high prices they charge by arguing that their research and development (R&D) costs are huge. ... But as the table below shows, drug companies spend far more on marketing drugs - in some cases twice as much - than on developing them. ... Big pharma companies also say they only have a limited time in which to make profits. — BBC News on pharma manufacturing cost

And, of course, there is also another notorious expense in "Big Pharma":

But drug companies have been accused of, and admitted to, far worse. Until recently, paying bribes to doctors to prescribe their drugs was commonplace at big pharmas, although the practice is now generally frowned upon and illegal in many places. GSK was fined $490m in China in September for bribery and has been accused of similar practices in Poland and the Middle East. Indeed a recent study found that doctors in the US receiving payments from pharma companies were twice as likely to prescribe their drugs. Drug companies have also been accused of colluding with chemists to overcharge for their medicines. They have also been found guilty of mis-branding and wrongly promoting various drugs. — BBC News on Big Pharma bribery

As I have said previously, it is absolutely not sound to trust the advice of doctors and chemists on big-ticket pharmaceutical drugs without pushing their advice through a thorough verification procedure. Seriously, your doctor simply gets paid by the pharma oligarchy to lie to you. Why would anybody tell the truth if his very livelihood depends on furthering lies?

I'm talking about where the problem with any alternative might lie. Companies producing cheap knock-offs are motivated by exactly the same greed as the big companies. — Isaac

If the alternative vendor produces exactly the same molecule/product as Big Pharma, i.e. a "generic", but a lot cheaper, and unless you have an excellent reason to believe that there are manufacturing quality problems -- rather unlikely -- then it always makes sense to buy the generic alternative.

The problem of fitness for purpose is in fact the same in both cases. So, that should not factor into the decision to pick the one product or the other.

They have exactly the same ability to extort and manipulate laws (albeit more likely with bribes than lobbying). — Isaac

No, they don't.

For example, Sun Pharma in Uttar Pradesh does not have the same stronghold on the American FDA as e.g. Merck or Johnson & Johnson. It simply does not work like that.

It's not your assessment of the problem I take issue with, it's your assessment of the solution. — Isaac

The solution that I would apply is to investigate related paperwork and then to proceed by purchasing online an Asian generic version of the drug, typically from the Indian subcontinent (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh) which seem to specialize in keeping afloat an alternative production of generics.

I do not have the nitty-gritty details of the verification procedure for their related paperwork because I have never had to carry out such replacement. Doctors in SE Asia always tend to prescribe the generic version anyway.

What's more, in SE Asia, even the branded pharma costs substantially less anyway. I guess that this is Big Pharma's way of adjusting to competition in a market where they do not have a stronghold on the regulator and where they cannot restrict market access to the generic competition. So, whenever I buy branded pharma, I typically pay less than a 10th of the price in North America anyway. I am quite sure that Big Pharma still makes lots of profit on that much reduced price.

The cost of producing drugs is not in manufacturing: — alcontali

That was just an example. Maybe the cost is in R&D (maybe not, if you trust the BBC journalism), paying for regulatory checks, whatever. The point is the companies in India are not charities. If they're offering the thing cheaper it's because they're not paying for something the more expensive companies are paying for. To conclude that they're worth going for, you need to know what that something is and be sure you can do without it. To know that you have to trust somebody who is an expert in the field telling you what that thing is.

Sun Pharma in Uttar Pradesh does not have the same stronghold on the American FDA as e.g. Merck or Johnson & Johnson. It simply does not work like that. — alcontali

I'm not limiting this to America.

to proceed by purchasing online an Asian generic version of the drug, typically from the Indian subcontinent (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh) which seem to specialize in keeping afloat an alternative production of generics. — alcontali

I wouldn't trust some random Internet sale with my health. That would be borderline lunacy. How do I even know the pill contains anything but sugar? How do I know they haven't just fullied a generic-branded packet with leftover pills from some less well-selling bulk purchase. How do I know that new medication will still be properly funded? How do I know adverse reactions will be properly accounted? That's a crap solution, and some hand-waivy reference to 'paperwork' won't wash.

If they're offering the thing cheaper it's because they're not paying for something the more expensive companies are paying for. To conclude that they're worth going for, you need to know what that something is and be sure you can do without it. — Isaac

Whatever that may be, it is not the manufacturing cost of the chemical molecule that we are talking about, because in the greater light of things, that cost is considered to be peanuts.

To know that you have to trust somebody who is an expert in the field telling you what that thing is. — Isaac

What is needed, is some kind of assurance that Sun Pharma is indeed shipping methimazole in their Methimez product. According to my preliminary investigation, there is absolutely no reason to believe that the problem, "Does Methimez contain methimazole?" is worse or better than when you buy Tapazole or Northyx.

Furthermore, I really do not need the opinion on that matter from an expert liar paid by Big Pharma.

Again, why would these expert liars even consider telling you the truth when their income depends on diligently lying to you?

Unless you convincingly show me otherwise, as far as I am concerned, I would conclude that Methimez is a legitimate substitute for Tapazole and Northyx, and proceed accordingly.

I wouldn't trust some random Internet sale with my health. That would be borderline lunacy. — Isaac

If you do not trust internet sales, then you should not use them. A can of beans ordered online from Amazon could indeed contain rat poison. How do you know it doesn't? Huh? Huh?

Furthermore, unlike your neighbourhood chemist chain, foreign internet platforms are way less likely to collude with Big Pharma. Again, you insist on putting your trust in people known and documented to make a living from lying to you, while distrusting other people who obviously have less of an incentive and less of an opportunity to manipulate you.

How do I even know the pill contains anything but sugar? — Isaac

How do you even know that Tapazole or Northyx contains anything but sugar? You have not given any evidence why this problem would be better or worse for Methimez.

How do I know adverse reactions will be properly accounted? — Isaac

The side effects of the methimazole molecule are the same for all brands under which name it is being shipped. You are mixing problems here. You are just black mouthing products like Methimez for no good reason at all. I would buy Methimez and not Tapazole or Northyx, because I do not see any benefit for me to subsidize the scheming liars and manipulators of the Big Pharma oligarchy.

Lenin and Hitler come to mind in recent political history. Their goals were wrong, but boy they could lead. — god must be atheist

They led but they weren't good leaders. Perhaps leader isn't such a good word to use here.

I wonder though how this fits into what I was saying about needing schools for leaders. Is it possible to make someone immune to the temptations of power and wealth, a necessity if anyone is to qualify as a good leader? — TheMadFool

Maybe what we need to consider is people who are used to dealing in power, who come from a cultural background where power is something they’ve learned to deal with, grown up with. It does sound elitist, but maybe that’s what real leaders are, instead of a corporal gaining power and wielding it without experience.

Have you ever encountered anyone that fits the description? There must be a couple of such people out there somewhere. — TheMadFool

Do you think that Churchill was a leader during the war? Or Roosevelt?

Lenin and Hitler come to mind in recent political history. Their goals were wrong, but boy they could lead. — god must be atheist

I don’t think they fit the definition of leader. If you rule through fear then you’re hardly leading.

I think leader is still the right word to go by.

Do you think that Churchill was a leader during the war? Or Roosevelt? — Brett

How is that relevant to what I said? Churchill and Roosevelt were formally installed as leaders by way of elections. Does that alone make them leaders? I don't know but surely the people expected much from them to have them voted into office.

You asked if there was anyone that fitted the description of a leader that we knew of. I'm suggesting Churchill and Roosevelt fit that discription during the war years.

Maybe what we need to consider is people who are used to dealing in power, who come from a cultural background where power is something they’ve learned to deal with, grown up with. It does sound elitist, but maybe that’s what real leaders are, instead of a corporal gaining power and wielding it without experience. — Brett

Maybe.

You asked if there was anyone that fitted the description of a leader that we knew of. I'm suggesting Churchill and Roosevelt fit that discription during the war years. — Brett

Well then we can learn from them and use whatever traits they possessed as part of our model of the "perfect" leader which we can ask future leaders to emulate.

You keep getting sidetracked into your evidence against big pharma and missing the point.

I completely agree with you that Big Pharma do not have my welfare in mind, that they will, and do, happily lie to me to sell their products which may or may not have any beneficial effect on my health. OK. So can we stop getting sidetracked into your rants about how bad they are. I haven't taken any form of medicine at all (not even paracetamol) fro the last decade, despite some close shaves. I don't trust them because they have demonstrated that they are untrustworthy. This is not an issue on which we disagree.

The issues I'm raising here are twofold.

1. In order to learn this stuff about Big Pharma, about which we both agree, you had to trust someone on the basis of their purported expertise. You did not personally find all this out, you listened to experts - whether they we investigative journalists, drug database system administrators, certification authorities, testing labs - you had to decide that these people were likely to be telling you the truth. You say you used corroboration, but that is exactly the method used to assess all experts at a base level.

2. In trusting the Asian alternative companies you are presuming, without warrant, that simply because they are not engaged in the deceitful activities of the Big Pharma, they are not engaged in any unsavoury activities at all. Again, this is either an act of trust, or it is monumentally naive. There are all sorts of ways in which these companies might make money at someone's expense, even if the actual molecule they supply is the same one Big Pharma do. That is not the only effect a company has in conducting it's affairs.

a. Which company has a better record on workers rights and environmental protection?
b. What other ingredients, besides the active one, are allowed into the pill which the FDA may have banned?
c. Are the company paying any money towards researching new better drugs?
d. Do the company have a proper system for reporting side effects so that future patients can be better informed?
e. Who checks the medicines to ensure they contain the ingredient they claim and can those people be bribed/coerced?

You cannot personally verify any of these things. To do so you must decide to trust experts. You need not make this decision blindly, but you absolutely must do so in at least partial uncertainty. That's what trust is - not blind faith, but a judgement in a state of partial uncertainty.

The question was one about trust in experts, not about which medication to take for hyperthyroidism

1. In order to learn this stuff about Big Pharma, about which we both agree, you had to trust someone on the basis of their purported expertise. You did not personally find all this out, you listened to experts - whether they we investigative journalists, drug database system administrators, certification authorities, testing labs - you had to decide that these people were likely to be telling you the truth. You say you used corroboration, but that is exactly the method used to assess all experts at a base level. — Isaac

I guess that this a point on which we may disagree somehow.

We (quite) often need other people to discover knowledge for us -- e.g. to what medical condition do my symptoms likely correspond? -- but we do not necessarily need other people to verify the paperwork for such newly-discovered knowledge. Since the paperwork for formal knowledge is mechanically verifiable, there is no need for an expert to verify it. A machine can do that too; better and cheaper. Hence, my outspoken preference for formal knowledge.

I do not recognize "experts" in disciplines for which the paperwork cannot (conceivably) be verified mechanically. At best, their bet is as good as everyone else's. On average, it is much worse, because they tend to get paid to lie to you.

Empty suit problem ( or “expert problem” ): some members of professions have no differential abilities from the rest of the population, but, for some reason, and against their empirical record, are believed to be experts: clinical psychologists, academic economists, risk experts, statisticians, political analysts, financial experts, military analysts, CEOs. etc. They dress up their expertise in beautiful language, jargon, mathematics, and often wear expensive suits. — Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Black Swan, Impact of the highly improbable

We have discussed an example from the pharma industry. Large areas in medical knowledge are epistemically part of science, and therefore, their paperwork can (conceivably) be verified mechanically. In that respect, it is a relatively safe subject in which I do recognize the existence of experts, even though for a plethora of different reasons, a substantial and noticeable proportion of the medical practitioners will end up being rather dangerous than helpful.

So, I occasionally use experts to discover new knowledge but only if the paperwork for such new knowledge can (conceivably) be verified mechanically. Otherwise, I do not trust these people.

2. In trusting the Asian alternative companies you are presuming, without warrant, that simply because they are not engaged in the deceitful activities of the Big Pharma, they are not engaged in any unsavoury activities at all. Again, this is either an act of trust, or it is monumentally naive. There are all sorts of ways in which these companies might make money at someone's expense, even if the actual molecule they supply is the same one Big Pharma do. That is not the only effect a company has in conducting it's affairs. — Isaac

I did not extend any form of blanket "trust" to Sun Pharma from Uttar Pradesh. I only said, after a short preliminary investigation into the matter, that I do not see any reason to distrust their Methimez (generic) product any more than the Tapazole or Northyx (Big pharma) alternatives.

You cannot personally verify any of these things. To do so you must decide to trust experts. — Isaac

Well, no, I can always verify the paperwork for expert claims, because I do not recognize experts in disciplines of which the paperwork cannot (conceivably) be verified mechanically. I share Nassim Taleb's opinion that that kind of people are just "empty suits". Their claims are simply not knowledge, in an epistemic understanding, i.e. what they proclaim are not objectively justified beliefs. If the beliefs in a professional field are objectively justified, then their paperwork can also (conceivably) be verified mechanically. If that is not the case, then there simply are no experts in that particular field.

Hence, I never trust experts to verify the claims' paperwork. I only trust mechanical procedures for that purpose. I only use experts to discover candidate claims, i.e. hypotheses, and to produce the paperwork, which later on, will need to be verified mechanically (well, ideally).

A good school for democratic leaders would be a democratic school.

http://www.summerhillschool.co.uk

So, I occasionally use experts to discover new knowledge but only if the paperwork for such new knowledge can (conceivably) be verified mechanically. Otherwise, I do not trust these people. — alcontali

You're not providing, in this binomial assessment, any means of dealing with uncertainty. There's knowledge who's paperwork can be verified, we trust that and proceed as if it were the case. Then there's knowledge who's paperwork cannot be verified mechanically (say much of psychology, my own area of expertise). We do not trust that.

But what if you needed, nonetheless, to make a decision in a field who's paperwork cannot be verified mechanically? Let's say economics. The paperwork for its knowledge claims cannot be verified mechanically, but what grounds have you for claiming this binomially. Maybe its paperwork is nearly verifiable, or nearer to verifiable than other systems. Maybe it's probabilistically a better guess. If you're forced into making some kind of decision either way, you'd be best going with the more verifiable system, even if that paperwork is messy and flawed, better than no paperwork at all.

I only said, after a short preliminary investigation into the matter, that I do not see any reason to distrust their Methimez (generic) product any more than the Tapazole or Northyx (Big pharma) alternatives. — alcontali

No, you actually said you would choose them over the other, meaning that you either consider them better or, for some reason not yet clear, you consider money to be the only factor (they're cheaper so I'll go with them).

what they proclaim are not objectively justified beliefs. If a belief is objectively justified, then its paperwork can also be verified mechanically. If that is not the case, then there are no experts in that particular field. — alcontali

Again, as above, you are treating this, for some reason, as if the only options were mechanically verifiable paperwork (trustworthy) and not mechanically verifiable paperwork (not trustworthy). I don't know why you're excluding partially verifiable paperwork (slightly more trustworthy than not, and a goid option if you've no better choice).

I only use experts to discover candidate claims, i.e. hypotheses, and to produce the paperwork, which later on, will need to be verified mechanically (well, ideally). — alcontali

In 'ideally' here you're ignoring one crucial pragmatic factor which is time. We can posit any algorithm we like and claim it to result in the 'right' answer, but if we cannot complete that algorithm in the time by which the answer is required then its pointless, no matter how 'right' it ends up being.

Often 'experts' are just a shortcut to knowledge which you yourself could verify but not in the space of time you have by which you need to make an informed decision.

A good school for democratic leaders would be a democratic school.

http://www.summerhillschool.co.uk — unenlightened

Yes!

But what if you needed, nonetheless, to make a decision in a field who's paperwork cannot be verified mechanically? Let's say economics. — Isaac

I consider economics to be an ideology. We already knew that because the Soviet Union had their own completely different brand of economics. If it is possible to have two completely different takes on the same subject, without ending up in glaring contradictions, then the subject is ideological.

Stiglitz and Krugman, both Nobel prize laureates for economics got completely slagged off by the bitcoin community for their incompetent views on bitcoin. Nassim Taleb has also wrecked a Nobel prize laureate for economics:

Taleb and Nobel laureate Myron Scholes have traded personal attacks, particularly after Taleb's paper with Espen Haug on why nobody used the Black–Scholes–Merton formula. Taleb said that Scholes was responsible for the financial crises of 2008, and suggested that "this guy should be in a retirement home doing Sudoku. His funds have blown up twice. He shouldn't be allowed in Washington to lecture anyone on risk."[4] — Wikipedia, Taleb on Myron Scholes

I do not consider Stiglitz, Krugman, or Scholes to be experts. I have already dismissed and disregarded their advice, and done much better because of it. The following is what Nassim Taleb says on the matter:

If I had to relive my life I would be even more stubborn and uncompromising than I have been. One should never do anything without skin in the game. If you give advice, you need to be exposed to losses from it. — Nassim Taleb on being stubborn and disagreeable

Taleb explains this idea at length in The most intolerant wins. The dictatorship of the small minority. Ultimately, society is shaped by naysayers, i.e. people who do not listen. Hence, the message is clear: don't listen. Disbelieve it for the sheer sake of disbelieving it. Why? Because in God I trust and in nothing else.

Often 'experts' are just a shortcut to knowledge which you yourself could verify but not in the space of time you have by which you need to make an informed decision. — Isaac

Yeah, but a large number of messages in a commercial or even societal setting are meant to mislead you, especially, if they already know that you will not be verifying anything. It is by trusting these messages that you make it more profitable for the liars to lie even harder. You are simply turning your own environment into a living hell by doing that.

So no answer to the actual question then?

So no answer to the actual question then? — Isaac

A good school for democratic leaders would be a democratic school. — unenlightened

If words like black and white were involved, instead of the jargon words dead and living, he would see at once that language was being used in an improper way. Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable’. The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. Statements like Marshal Petain was a true patriot, The Soviet press is the freest in the world, The Catholic Church is opposed to persecution, are almost always made with intent to deceive. Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, science, progressive, reactionary, bourgeois, equality. — George Orwell in Politics and the English language

Democracy is a scam. The true nature of the word alone, says it all. So, they want a better school to better train professional scammers, as if there aren't enough of those already. Well, yeah, go for it. Why not?

No, schools are places to keep children occupied so their parents can work, if any learning takes place it's a bonus, and the subjects are those thought most appropriate to a colonial ideal which are sorely in need of updating, not anything to do with importance, otherwise they would be computing, economics, household maintenance, and organisational skills at the very least. — Isaac

There is, sad to say, a lot of truth in your statement. Schools have been described as management of the masses, regulation of the labor pool, keeping youth off the streets where they might interfere with the gears of capitalism, etc. Two caveats:

a) the children of the elite receive excellent educations, as do some others who will fill positions serving the interests of the elite
b) "school" is less important now than it was in the past (this itself is a dated observation) because 24/7 mass media now shapes people into the kinds of consumers that are needed.

why is it that they don't impose the same exacting standards for their leaders (presidents, senators, governors, etc)? — TheMadFool

One reason is that "leadership" is sort of ineffable. Can you describe for us what traits and features the perfect (or even half-ways tolerable) leader would have? What kind of leader(s) do you want?

I'm not sure to what extent "leaders" are born and to what extent they are made. Then there are their followers. Followers have something to do with the behavior of leaders. So do "stakeholders". Every corporation and rich SOB that makes a big donation to a political campaign has a hook in the elected official. Hitler was financed; he didn't just run things based on his innate charm.

My guess is that certain inborn traits, coupled with playground experiences, life in families, classroom experiences, class-linked experiences, and so on go into making leaders. Then too, different circumstances require different kinds of leaders. A country thrust into a war (like, by being invaded) needs one type of leader; a country suffering from severe economic depression needs another kind of leader, perhaps.

I wish we knew how to get the kinds of leader we need.

Democracy is a scam. — alcontali

You cannot have a scam without there being legitimacy. One cannot be deceived unless there is a truth of the matter.