Oh and the articles I presented are not about knee-jerk reactions on twitter and the press. They are about actual scientific debate... but you'd have to have actually read them to find that out, and that seems too much to ask here. — Isaac

Actually I have read them. And they are not about 'actual scientific debate', most of the times. They are about:

Such division is especially evident in non-academic routes of communication such as declarations, letters, petitions, and personal views. Many of the worst examples are occurring in public forums.
-- from: Society deserves academic discourse that is civil, cool, unbiased, and objective

When scientists sign down grand declarations about what an appropriate response to covid-19 should be, they act politically, they enter the political arena. In doing so, they automatically expose themselves to the kind of fight that happens in political arenas.

All the 3 articles express concerns for the possible erosion of public trust in scientists and healthcare professionals. I seriously doubt you share this concern, when you declares urbi et orbi that one cannot trust the academia...

Depending on your perspective — Isaac

Words have a meaning.

they are not about 'actual scientific debate', most of the times. — Olivier5

Then you must have missed

After that, I got a series of warnings from professional contacts and others, asking me if I had aligned with Donald Trump

there is a lot of anger, and a lot of the scientific discourse has become very acrimonious and even personal… It’s beginning to feel like open discussion is being stifled

The covid-19 pandemic has accentuated an erosion in civility in academic discourse...in professional media — literally the first fucking line

Lenzer and Brownlee were in turn personally criticised after their essay was published, not merely on social media, but more importantly in communications to organizations to which they belong and publications for which they had previously written

Words have a meaning. — Olivier5

What?

This is not about this or that case here or there.

( And just to be clear, none of the cases above have anything to do with vaccines. Rather they were about the possible negative effects of lockdowns, for the most part. )

It is rather about Mr Prasad spreading anti-science rhetoric, and you helping him. All I am saying is: 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.

All I am saying is: don't spread the unhelpful anti-science rhetoric of folks with an easily discernable political bias — Olivier5

I haven't.

...and no qualification in immunology — Olivier5

What's a qualification in immunology got to do with a discussion about discourse in science?

It's mainly about discourse outside of scientific outlets, to be precise, and it's about what to do against covid... And you HAVE spread the unhelpful anti-science rhetoric of a person with an easily discernable political bias.

It's mainly about discourse outside of scientific outlets — Olivier5

I've just shown it isn't.

it's about what to do against covid — Olivier5

It isn't. He doesn't make a single medical recommendation.

you HAVE spread the unhelpful anti-science rhetoric of a person with an easily discernable political bias. — Olivier5

So you're saying I should only post things according to whether you think they're anti-science and whether you think the person has a political bias. Why would I do that?

So you're saying I should only post things according to whether you think they're anti-science and whether you think the person has a political bias. — Isaac

Stop lying all the time, it's tiring.

And you HAVE spread the unhelpful anti-science rhetoric of a person with an easily discernable political bias. — Olivier5

You think pro-science rethoric is usefull? Both the pro- ant anti- are as unhelpfull as can be. The scientific approach to Covid19, how the disease can be fought, stopped from spreading (the spreading could, as a matter of fact, not have been that global if science hadn't given the knowledge needed to construct high-tech airplanes, like aerodynamics and Maxwell's electrodynamics) is just as reliable/unreliable as the non-scientific one.

You think pro-science rethoric is usefull? — GraveItty

No. I am saying that ANTI-SCIENCE RHETORIC IS NOT HELPFUL. What is it with anti-vaxxers and reading comprehension? You cannot argue without distorting other people's position all the sodding time?

No. I am saying that ANTI-SCIENCE RHETORIC IS NOT HELPFUL. What is it with anti-vaxxers and reading comprehension? You cannot argue without distorting other people's position all the sodding time? — Olivier5

I'M SAYING THAT TOO! Just read. It's as unhelpfull as pro-science rhetoric.

I am saying that ANTI-SCIENCE RHETORIC IS NOT HELPFUL. — Olivier5

You're clearly not. You're saying that anti-science rhetoric is not helpful and that Vinay Prasad's article is an example of it. It's the latter claim that's at issue, for me, not the former.

Repeating only the uncontroversial part of a two part claim and then acting incredulous that anyone should argue the full claim on that basis is a well known psychological trick. No one here is stupid enough to fall for it.

All I'm saying is you shouldn't use stupid psychological tricks in a serious philosophy discussion...

I was responding to @GraveItty who was distorting my position, like you are doing all the time yourself.

Prasad concludes that "sadly, there are few scientists left". Words have a meaning, Isaac. I for one think there are many scientists left. Do you think otherwise?

I was responding to GraveItty who was distorting my position, like you are doing all the time yourself. — Olivier5

Distorting your "position"? I haven't got the faintest idea where you stand. I merely said that both pro- and anti- science rethorics are helpfull. As are pro- and anti- rethorics about all approaches to a problem, Corona included.

I merely said that both pro- and anti- science rethorics are helpfull. — GraveItty

Sic

So you're saying I should only post things according to whether you think they're anti-science and whether you think the person has a political bias. — Isaac

I am saying rather that you are spreading the anti-science rhetoric of a heavily politicized pundit about Covid. That he is heavily politicized is something you could have checked by reading his blog, as I did. But you didn't do so, probably because you trusted him enough.

So why did you trust him? Why didn't you check this guy's background before spreading his stuff? Especially since there was this red flag at the end of your quote: "there are few [real] scientists left". You didn't pick that clue up. Maybe you are a bit politically naïve...

In short, what are your standards?

Sic — Olivier5

So where am I distorting your position? Maybe I'm distorting your discussion here.

Sic.

What is it with anti-vaxxers and reading comprehension — Olivier5

Dunno. But I know that pro-vaxers lack this comprehension too.

So where am I distorting your position? — GraveItty

Above you wrote that "both pro- and anti- science rhetorics are helpful." I suppose you meant "NOT helpful"???

You are not even able to present your own position accurately. Make an effort.

Above you wrote that "both pro- and anti- science rhetorics are helpful." I suppose you meant "NOT helpful"??? — Olivier5

Yes. Luckily there are bright minds like yours to correct mine! Thanks!

Prasad concludes that "sadly, there are few scientists left". Words have a meaning, Isaac. I for one think there are many scientists left. Do you think otherwise? — Olivier5

We've been through this. It was rhetorical.

I am saying rather that you are spreading the anti-science rhetoric of a heavily politicized pundit about Covid — Olivier5

I know what you're saying. 'Anti-science' and 'highly politicised' are both opinions of yours. That you can't tell the difference between an opinion and a fact is a root cause of your confusion here.

But you didn't do so, probably because you trusted him enough. — Olivier5

Why would you think I hadn't read his blog? Where the fuck do you think I got the citation from? I've read Vinay's commentary since the beginning of this crisis. I've found him to be generally balanced and reasonable. You think he's politicised. I'm just dumbfounded that you can be so egotistical that you think the only reason why I don't agree with your assessment is that I haven't read his writing. It's off the charts in terms of self-righteousness. That you genuinely can't even conceive of someone having read his blog and not reaching the same conclusion you did, like alternatives to your view aren't even possible.

In short, what are your standards? — Olivier5

As I said to @Xtrix

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

Prasad meets that criteria.

He's talking about the way science is being discussed - he's scientist himself so he's qualified to speak about scientific discourse.

He's not paid by anyone, no one benefits financially from what he's saying, he's not pushing a product and he's not employed by someone who benefits from what he's saying. So he meets the lack of conflicts of interest criteria.

He's not religiously or ideologically wedded to opposing drugs (he's an oncologist) , or vaccines, or government. He's made no previous overt political statements. So he meets the lack of pre-existing bias threshold too.

What criteria do you have that he fails on?

Try and make an effort. Your mistake looks like a freudian lapse.

You are not even able to present your own position accurately. Make an effort.
5m — Olivier5

Not even? What do you meaning? I am able, but made a mistake. As simple as that.

We've been through this. It was rhetorical. — Isaac

That is what I am saying too: it was anti-science rhetoric.

no one benefits financially from what he's saying, he's not pushing a product and he's not employed by someone who benefits from what he's saying. So he meets the lack of conflicts of interest criteria. — Isaac

He is mentioning his books in a lot of his posts... :-)

He's made no previous overt political statements. — Isaac

Saying that Covid is the end of progressivism is not an overt political statement?

Try and make an effort. Your mistake looks like a freudian lapse. — Olivier5

An effort for what?

For expressing your ideas (?) accurately.

For expressing your ideas (?) accurately. — Olivier5

I'm not that accurate. It brings misery only.

No wonder you can't think straight.

That is what I am saying too: it was anti-science rhetoric. — Olivier5

We've been through this too. Rhetorically lamenting that there are "few scientists left" was meant as a wake up call to defend science before it got lost in petty posturing. You think it's anti-science, others don't. Opinion/fact. Would you like me to draw you a diagram?

He is mentioning his books in a lot of his posts... :-) — Olivier5

Try disqualifiying any public commentator who doesn't do that, we'll see how much public discussion of science is left.

Saying that Covid is the end of progressivism is not an overt political statement? — Olivier5

Again, if that's your standard for 'politicised' then you're basically saying scientists can't comment on government or economic issues without being subsequently banned from being quoted.

But this is getting into our usual ridiculous hyperbole. He said something you don't agree with so you want him silenced. We get it.

Rhetorically lamenting that there are "few scientists left" was meant as a wake up call to defend science before it got lost in petty posturing. — Isaac

Which is a ridiculous, totally fake idea about modern science.

Try disqualifiying any public commentator who doesn't do that, we'll see how much public discussion of science is left. — Isaac

He doesn't fit the "no conflict of interest" criteria, period.

if that's your standard for 'politicised' then you're basically saying scientists can't comment on government or economic issues without being subsequently banned from being quoted. — Isaac

Why yes, politicized means "politicized". Words have a meaning. Scientists can comment all they want on politics but these are de facto political comments they are making, and in his case his statements show a strong political bias towards the right. So he does not satisfy the criteria of "no political bias" either.

You standards are very low.

Which is a ridiculous, totally fake idea about modern science. — Olivier5

Opinion/fact. We're going to need that diagram after all.

He doesn't fit the "no conflict of interest" criteria, period. — Olivier5

OK, 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.

Scientists can comment all they want on politics — Olivier5

Good, because you were gagging them earlier, we're making progress it seems.

in his case his statements show a strong political bias towards the right — Olivier5

An example?