But how can you have such good reasons for selecting or dismissing evidence, if you're not actually an expert in the field?
— baker
Here I'm thinking of 'good' reasons as being those experience has taught us tend toward satisfactory results. Habits of thinking. If a person saying that tobacco is safe is paid by the tobacco industry, I don't need to be an expert in lung physiology to make a 'good' decision to take what he's saying with a pinch of salt. It's a habit of thinking I've developed to assess the possible conflicts of interest in those presenting me with evidence.
Evidence of previous bias (always coming down on one side of an ambiguous dichotomy), ideological commitments (politics, academic allegiances), publication biases (shock value, issue-of-the-day)...all of these can be used heuristically to weight evidence, or reject it entirely, without needing any expertise in the field at all.
The more one assesses evidence, the greater a bank of habits one develops. That's not to say that these habits are all right by any objective measure, only that they've proven themselves useful. The layman might rely on those things listed above, someone more versed in statistical techniques might additionally recognise signs of p-hacking or a suspiciously selected stratification - but still, none of these require expertise in the field being evaluated. — Isaac
What I've been lamenting in the Covid threads is that fact that I think there used to be a perfectly adequate standard (not perfect, by any means, but enough to filter out the crap). Matters regarding some field of expertise are discussed either by those experts or by reference to them. It's as simple as that. If you've met the threshold of epistemic responsibility to become an expert in some field, have no discoverable conflict of interest, no history of deep bias, then you have the right to be taken seriously and respectfully in any discussion within that field. Likewise laymen discussing that field are extended this right if they (in context) cite, or paraphrase the positions of these people who have met this standard.
I know I might sound like a typical old man, but this is how things used to be done (at least in my circles, which I admit are quite limited). The decay started before Covid but has been exaggerated massively during the crisis to the point we now find ourselves, where one's conclusions are all that matter, not the diligence with which one has arrived at them. Indeed, as here, one's conclusions are being used as a measure of the diligence one is assumed to have used arriving at them. — Isaac
All I ever did was call for more caution. For this, several posters immediately classed me as an anti-vaccer, as irrational, evil, and such. I'm benumbed by such a reply, I certainly didn't expect it at a philosophy forum. — baker
It is the way in the internet works. — I like sushi
I recall that you accused untold numbers of non-descript people of being criminals and profiteers, among the many many insults you keep dishing out here. — Olivier5
everyone of us once in a while argues in bad faith — Olivier5
You insisted on making it all about you you you. — Olivier5
like when you pretended to confuse an in vitro finding with an in vivo conclusion. — Olivier5
Didn't you harp forever about pharmaceuticals and politicians being all corrupt?
Didn't you pretend to equate a finding about the presence of certain molecules in the blood stream of 38 individuals with the effective immunity of all of us against COVID?
What are you proposing we do about COVID? — Olivier5
Agreed! I find I sometimes have to point this out to people who point to the replication crisis as more evidence that science is bullshit. It's more evidence, not less, that science is, at least, intended to be a self-correcting communal enterprise. That is its great value, not the supposed — Srap Tasmaner
Engaging in discussions about the validity of complementary or even contradictory inferences can support an effective response. However, it is not feasible to engage meaningfully within 280 characters or if value judgments are ascribed to only certain positions. Public health means that the consensus view may have blindspots, so we must encourage healthy debate and dialogue. Debate was stifled during covid-19 in the name of fear.
I’ll repeat: vaccine mandates have been around for decades — at schools and many workplaces. — Xtrix
It’s not new technology. — Xtrix
So you mention newness because you want to highlight the risks, despite acknowledging that they’re safe. Do I have that right? — Xtrix
I think that if one were to start researching the evidence for and against a medical treatment, this would be an endless quest, resulting only in paralysis of analysis, and postponement or denial of treatment altogether, or undertaking it without much faith (which could jeopardize its effectiveness). — baker
What has changed with the coming of social media (and reality shows) is that now, more people get to express themselves in a relatively durable and wide-reaching medium. This way, the ratio between the publicly available opinions of experts and the publicly available opinions of non-experts is quite different than it used to be, say, up to 30 years ago, and it's a ratio in favor of the non-experts. — baker
alternatively you could actually quote me rather than more traducing. — Isaac
I’m guilty of it myself in the past too. I’m entirely sure why it is people behave like this tbh. — I like sushi
you started this mud sliding against them way before I paid any attention to your sorry behavior. — Olivier5
If you accuse someone of mud-slinging, you are accusing them of making insulting, unfair, and damaging remarks about their opponents.
If I've said anything unfair about the pharmaceutical industry, then I'll be happy to correct it, but you do need to actually cite it in order for me to do that. — Isaac
I wouldn't say it's a fact, but from all surface appearances there does seem to be more division assumed based on conceptions of who someone is, what they think and why they think it in rather simplistic terms (ie. for Brexit=Racist or Against Trump=Marxist). — I like sushi
Tell you what. If I've said anything unfair about you, then I'll be happy to correct it, but you do need to actually cite it in order for me to do that. — Olivier5
disgusting, creepy paranoid shit about the pharmaceutical industry — Olivier5
There's this crisis where millions are dying and one crucial part of the solution is a vaccine. But the only people who can make vaccines are these awful, criminal profiteers (I'm exaggerating only a bit). What do we do? If we say we can't trust the awful, criminal profiteers and tell them where they can stick their vaccine, a lot of people will die whilst we all become immune naturally. — Isaac
Of course we can't trust the pharmaceuticals - they're organisations with criminal convictions for lying. Of course we can't trust the FDA - they have a well known revolving door with the companies they're supposed to check, their former head is now at Pfizer, for God's sake. Of course we can't trust our governments - that politicians lie is such a truism it's a standing joke. And of course we can't trust our academic institutions - most are funded if not directly employed by industry and the replication rate in the medical sciences is less than half. — Isaac
It’s an unbearably sinister view, that there’s this cabal of evil millionaire pharmaceutical companies scheming to get rich by pulling the wool over the citizen’s eyes.
— Wayfarer
It's not a 'view', it's in black and white in the articles of association for the company. They are incorporated to make money for their shareholders. It's not some tinfoilhat-wearing conspiracy theory that pharmaceutical companies try, above all else, to make as large a profit as they can. — Isaac
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.