I think that what you are getting at in the first part is two-fold. One, do not make the all to common mistake of thinking that argument and philosophy are the same. Second, and this becomes clear when considering the passage from the Phaedrus where Socrates admits he cannot give an account of what the soul really is. Socrates regarded the inability to give an account as an indication that one lacks knowledge, as can be seen for example when he interrogates the poets in the Apology. His main contention with the poets in several of the dialogues is their inability to distinguish a likeness from what it is a likeness of. Any yet here in the Phaedo, instead of saying what the soul is, he presents a likeness. How are we to know that it is a true likeness without knowledge of the thing itself? We are left with a dispute of words.

If what is being talked about is indescribable then the only sensible thing to do is to remain silent. Ironically, those who proclaim indescribable truths are those who have the most to say, although they do become silent when asked how they know about such things as the immortality of the soul and Forms, thinks that cannot be said but only seen. The contradict themselves by retreating and quoting things that are said.

Socrates himself prior to admitting that he cannot give an account of the soul presents an argument for the immortality of the soul:

First, then, we must learn the truth about the soul divine and human by observing how it acts and is acted upon. And the beginning of our proof is as follows: Every soul is immortal.(245c)

.

He cannot say what the soul is but argues that the truth is it is immortal. It is a physical argument based on motion. He goes on to say that a living being, compounded of soul and body is mortal. (246c) We are mortal beings. Some may believe stories about things we have no knowledge of, but they are for us images that we cannot measure against a purported reality. Where Plato points to the limits of our knowledge some mistakenly think he is pointing beyond them.

Safety –a measure of the probability of an adverse outcome and its severity ... — McGraw-Hill Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine

When an assessment is made it cannot measure things that only become evident at a latter date. If it is discovered years later that a drug poses a danger to a certain group of individuals, then the safety of the drug must be re-evaluated. It is the evaluation that changes. The danger was there all along, it was simply unknown.

And the argument is that waiting will increase the safety by decreasing the uncertainty (risk). — Isaac

It does not increase the safety but it may increase our understanding of the safety, but then again, it may not. Such an increase in our understanding may occur years from now rather than between now and its approval. Where do you draw the line?

As I said, safety and efficacy are not binomial, everything is only ever some given level of safety. — Isaac

You did, but you said so in defense of your claim that it doesn't make sense to say that the vaccine is safe and effective:

Because it has been shown to be safe and effective.
— Fooloso4

That doesn't make sense. It's not a binomial. — Isaac

And later you said that no one is denying its safety and efficacy. But also:

I've presented evidence from experts who believe that vaccination does not significantly increase the chances of a good outcome. — Isaac

Can you explain how the vaccine is effective but does not significantly increase chances of a good outcome? How do you reconcile these conflicting claims?

The question is what qualifies the FDA to determine what level of safety people ought to accept? — Isaac

That is a question but not the one that was raised. In this case, for him, based on what he said,FDA approval is the determining factor. The question is whether there is likely to be a significant increase in what is known about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine between now and approval, and whether that degree of confidence is offset by the danger of being infected.

Safety is entirely measured in terms of certainty. — Isaac

We are not dealing with quantum mechanics. The measurement does not alter what is being measured. The safety of a product and the determination of its safety are not the same. A product does not become safer because it is approved. It is approved because it has been shown to be safe. It is not its safety that changed, it is rather our degree of certainty of its safety that may change.

You suggested that it was evidence of the safety of the vaccine in the context of the FDAs work on safety... — Isaac

The context is whether he or others who are concerned for the safety of the vaccine should wait for FDA approval. If you did not understand that before, there is no good reason you would not now since it has been pointed out to you more than once. What is it you hope to accomplish be continuing to argue about your misunderstanding of what was said?

It is safer on Tuesday because by Tuesday we'll be less uncertain about it's effects than we were before Tuesday, because the FDA will have finished checking the safety data. — Isaac

The degree of certainty of its safety does not make it more safe, it simply makes us more certain that it is safe. It does not miraculously change the composition of the vaccine or how it will affect someone.

In direct contradiction of the expert I cited explaining how those millions of shots do not provide the level of safety information the FDA require. — Isaac

Of course it doesn't! Again, you are arguing against claims that are of your own making. The millions of shots is evidence of safety and efficacy. That is not the same thing as saying this evidence alone is sufficient for the FDA to make its determination. Does this really need to be explained to you?

You said...

At this point it is a matter of bureaucracy rather than safety or efficacy — Isaac

We have been through this. The safety and efficacy have been well established. Even you admitted that:

No one is denying it's safe and effective. — Isaac

Safety and efficacy and FDA approval are not one and the same thing. If someone is concerned about safety and efficacy of the vaccine at this point RATHER THAN wait for FDA approval there is already sufficient evidence that it is safe and effective.

Taking things out of context can change the meaning. Rather than admit that you failed to understand what was said in context you obstinately ignore the context and double down. Why?

Safety is entirely about uncertainty. — Isaac

Still looking for something to argue against. What I said was:

but without making changes approving it does not render it more safe. It simply confirms that it is safe and effective. — Fooloso4

It sometimes happens that a drug is approved and is later found to cause problems. Whether it is safe or not depends on the drug and people who take it. If the vaccine is approved on Tuesday it does not become safer than it was on Monday.

... you're making the argument that their specific motivation is not the EUA but the evidence from millions of vaccine shots (despite me posting a direct quote from Marks to the contrary, but hey, evidence seems to be irrelevant on this thread, so...) — Isaac

Why the perverse need to make claims and then trying to attribute them to me? What is your motivation? I am not talking about motivation at all. I am simply saying that the evidence from the millions of vaccine shots supports the safety and efficacy of the vaccine.

Because you said that despite their main work being about ensuring the safety and efficacy of medicines, their current work is not related to safety and efficacy. — Isaac

And yet again! I said no such thing. We have been through this already.

What's good about anti-vaxxers is they give a clear signal to the medical & scientific establishment that people won't tolerate substandard work/products. — TheMadFool

Rigorous industry standards have nothing to do with anti-vaxxers. Vaccines are only one class of regulated pharmaceutical products.

we don't have effective treatment modalities against viruses. — TheMadFool

Shingrix and Gardasil are effective viral vaccines. But you are right, more work products need to be brought to market.

None of that has any bearing on the matter of whether it will be rendered more safe by the work being done to complete the BLA approval. — Isaac

It may be rendered more safe if the FDA makes recommendations for changes with regard to labelling, packaging, identification of groups for whom the vaccine has greater risk because of age or health conditions or other things, but without making changes approving it does not render it more safe. It simply confirms that it is safe and effective.

It's just a load of bizarre psychologising about the motives for advocacy without, again, a shred of evidence. — Isaac

Evidence of what? The motives of experts who advocate getting the vaccine? I am not "psychologising" the motives of Marks and other experts. I assume their concern is for people's health and safety. Do you find that bizarre? The only thing that is bizarre here is your incessant need for disputation.

What are the FDA doing, right now, and how is it that you know (when seemingly even experts in public health don't even know)? — Isaac

Why would you think that I know what is going on right now at the FDA? Do you think that they are the only ones doing work on the safety and efficacy of the vaccine? Are you unaware of the CDC, the NIH, the WHO, and other regulatory agencies?

So confused. — Isaac

Indeed you are! You are confusing authorization with the widespread professional opinion backed by substantial evidence that the vaccine is safe and effective. This does not mean that they are without risk. Even with approval there will be individual cases where there are problems.

It's when the FDA decide that the risks from a new medicine are outweighed by the risks from the emergency - meaning that they think people ought to take it. It would have been rather foolish of them to give it EUA and then not endorse taking it, wouldn't it? /quote]

Wrong. The FDA issued EUA for hydroxychloroquine, but did not think people ought to take it. The EUA allowed its use, but they then revoked the EUA when the determined it was unlikely to be effective. The same happened with Bamlanivimab.
— Isaac

Marks and other experts...recommend getting the vaccine
— Fooloso4

I don't think you understand what a EUA is. — Isaac

It is, rather, you who does not understand. An EUA is not a recommendation for use. It allows the product to be used. In the case of the vaccine the EUA provided through the use of the vaccine for sufficient evidence of it safety and effectiveness that Marks and others recommend getting it. It is not regarded as safe and effective because of the EUA, it is regarded as safe and effective because of the evidence, including the evidence of millions of shots that were made possible by the EUA.

At this point it is still up to you, but that might change.

It is not just me saying this. Peter Marks, Director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) at the Food and Drug Administration and many others are saying this. See the letter to the New York Times he wrote that I linked to above.

What some here do not seem to understand that it is not simply a matter of review and approval. Regulatory personnel from the participating companies meet with the FDA where questions are raised that must be answered and concerns must be addressed. In many cases approval comes with recommendations, requirements for packaging and labeling, and restrictions for certain groups.

Again we are back to your misunderstanding of the term bureaucracy and how this particular bureaucracy works. All of their work is to establish safety and efficacy. In this case we have a clear view of the safety and efficacy ahead of approval. Clear enough for Marks and other experts to recommend getting the vaccine, but they will not just approve it before they complete their work for approval. They must complete their review. As Marks said, they are working to streamline the review process.

Are you deliberately trying to misconstrue what I've said? What was at issue in my initial comment to @180 Proof was the choose of getting the vaccine now or waiting for approval. Waiting at this point should not be about safety and efficacy, they have been established. The reason the FDA has not yet approved the vaccine is not that they have doubts about its safety and efficacy, it is, rather, about the workings of the agency. Its processes and procedures take time. That does not mean its workings are about something other than safety and efficacy. It means that the processes and procedures must be fully carried out for each product it approves. The delay in approval is at this point a bureaucratic problem rather than a problem with the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. That is why Marks and others are recommending getting the vaccine now rather than waiting for approval.

...data relating to safety and efficacy, hence you are wrong to say the the work they're doing is other than safety and efficacy work, which is the sole point of disagreement. — Isaac

Nowhere do I say that "the work they're doing is other than safety and efficacy work". Of course the data is related to safety and efficacy, that is what the FDA does. You are simply making up claims, attributing them to me, and then arguing against those claims. Read my early posts including this:

The role of the FDA is to verify that products are safe and effective. There is ample evidence that the vaccine is safe and effective. They are still required to do a thorough review of the data ... — Fooloso4

The evidence of safety and efficacy is sufficient to lead Marks and many other experts to recommend vaccination now even though the approval process is not complete.

You repeatedly conflate the question of whether the vaccine has been shown to be safe and effective enough to get vaccinated now with the issue of full approval.

Here is a letter in the NYT from July 9th by Peter Marks: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/09/opinion/letters/fda-covid-vaccines.html

It ends:

If we truly want our lives to return to normal, the fastest way to do so is simple — get vaccinated right now.

Marks is recommending being vaccinated now.

Secondly, you've still not given any detail on exactly what it is you think the FDA are doing over the next stage in their work (this mysterious 'bureaucracy' which is apparently unrelated to either safety or efficacy). — Isaac

What they are doing is exactly what I said they are doing, reviewing and evaluating the data. Which is exactly what Marks said in his letter. In the meantime Marks is recommending getting vaccinated now.

This is, in my opinion, a romanticized image of ancient philosophy.

And then claim that their main job is some other work rather than safety and efficacy work. — Isaac

Once again making claims and then attributing them to me.

What I said was:

At this point it is a matter of bureaucracy rather than safety or efficacy, which have been amply demonstrated. — Fooloso4

Note the bolding: AT THIS POINT. Is that not clear enough? That is not to deny the purpose and function of the FDA. It is a matter of where they are in the process of approval. The problem with the length of time it takes to approve a product is well known. They have taken measures to reduce the amount of time but it still takes time to complete that process.

Let's turn thins around. As you admit the vaccine has been shown to be safe and effective, so why hasn't it been approved yet?

I'm disagreeing with the proposition that the FDA work does not relate to safety and efficacy. — Isaac

In that case once again you are disagreeing with a claim of your own making. I said nothing of the sort. What I said is:

The role of the FDA is to verify that products are safe and effective. — Fooloso4

The problem begins with your lack of understanding of the term bureaucracy:

I don't see the justification for saying that the additional work of exactly the same form to meet the higher threshold is 'just bureaucracy'. — Isaac

From there you raised additional claims about wasting time and money, paper pushing, trivial conclusions, and the FDA delaying approval so they can do work which has no bearing on either safety nor efficacy, only to then argue against these claims as if someone other than you made them.

After all this, you seem to have come around to the position I started with:

The FDA will approve the vaccine. At this point it is a matter of bureaucracy rather than safety or efficacy, which have been amply demonstrated. — Fooloso4

You do not dispute that is is safe and effective:

No one is denying it's safe and effective. — Isaac

Despite your wild claims that you attempted to attribute to me, you also seem to be aware that the process take time.

Now unless you have some other claims you want to make up in order to argue against them I think we are done.

I was referring to when Critias related the story of what an Egyptian priest told Solon about ancient Athenians — Valentinus

This is interesting in several respects that I won't go into. I will only mention the idea of the old and venerable. We tend to put more value in what is new as more advanced. Plato acknowledges the old but is himself an innovator. The story of the ancient Athenians stands in contrast to Socrates' city in speech. It is significant that in retelling the story of the Republic Socrates neglects to mention the philosopher-king, without whom the city would not harmonious with itself let alone in perfect harmony with the ancient city.

What is one to make of the "fiction that becomes a fact" immediately before a creation story is told?

It becomes fact only if we accept Critias' story to be true. It seems to be fiction in the guise of fact. To pose the question another way: what is the role of poetry in philosophy?

I meant to ask if Plato and Aristotle are using the same model despite taking such different approaches. Aristotle takes the cosmogony and edits it so that it can become an argument. — Valentinus

The Timaeus is strange for a Platonic dialogue. It is almost a monologue, and Socrates uncharacteristically says very little. He does, however, remind Timaeus to call upon the gods in accordance with custom. (27b) This raises the problem of theology, to what extent talk of gods is a matter of custom, of nomos rather than logos.

what would using the same or different model of the divine look like in their case? — Valentinus

One problem the Timaeus raises is what serves as the model. In this case, what is the model of the gods, what is it they are made to look like.

All this calculation of a god who always is concerning the god who was one day to be (34a-b)

The god that came to be is the cosmos. All that comes to be passes away. Not all gods are eternal, unchanging gods. What does it mean to be divine?

It's just that in the TLP Witt is limiting the breadth of the world to what meets a certain criteria of logic — Antony Nickles

What needs to be understood is why he is doing this.

But to watch him write only what he knows to be absolutely true with such knowing restraint; you can feel his reaching but also never stepping beyond that discipline, so every statement captures his mind frame perfectly. — Antony Nickles

Again, you need to understand why he is attempting to draw the limits of what can be thought. He wants to point to what is beyond those limits, to what can be seen but not said.

I'm not sure who you're arguing against here. — Isaac

You are so busy arguing you can't keep track of what you are arguing for or against.

No one is denying it's safe and effective. — Isaac

Because it has been shown to be safe and effective.
— Fooloso4

That doesn't make sense. — Isaac

So, Peter Marks, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research is lying — Isaac

Why the need to twist and render hyperbolic every statement? I said several times that they cannot simply rely on an incomplete review.

Once again, you are conflating safety and efficacy with FDA approval. I cited several authoritative sources saying that the vaccine is safe and effective. That does not mean that the data can simply be used in place of the FDA review process. According to an interview with WP Marks said:

While each vaccine review is unique, the FDA aims to complete priority vaccine reviews within eight months of receiving an application for approval and standard reviews within 12 months of receipt.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/08/02/coronavirus-vaccines-fda-full-approval-timeline/

As I said several times, the process takes time. The FDA will not approve the vaccine until the process is complete. That does not mean that until that time we are in the dark, left wondering whether the vaccine is safe and effective. It is.

It is your claim that the FDA work from this point does not address safety and effectiveness that I'm disputing. — Isaac

We have already been through this, but you evidently desire a dance partner. The safety and efficacy have been established. The vaccine has not yet been approved because the beaurocracy is slow and thorough. They have procedures and protocols to follow that must be completed. This is standard for every approval and is in place to assure safety and effectiveness, but in this case, given the millions of vaccines already administered we have enough information to be confident of its safety and efficacy. Still, the review process must be completed. It may be that approval will include specific recommendations for certain groups, but at this late stage it is highly unlikely that there will be any unanticipated surprises.

One way to express my uncertainty about interests can be observed at the beginning of the Timaeus. — Valentinus

Do you mean his or Plato's interest in telling this unlikely "likely tale"? Or the city at war? Or the cause of the cosmos or in action?

... where storytelling is closely regulated, is inserted into a story about the distant past. That seems to complicate one's relationship to the cosmogony rather than provide orientation to our present endeavors. — Valentinus

Do you mean that we must take into consideration of Glaucon and the others, or those at that time who read the dialogue, who were educated through the stories of Homer and Hesiod, and how our own education is quite different? If so, then I agree. It is not so straight forward for us to read an ancient author about things that were ancient to that author. We are in that respect twice removed.

Does that difference in approach mean Plato and Aristotle are using different models of the divine? — Valentinus

Different from each other or different from us? Since the problem of a purposive universe was raised and the claim by @Wayfarer that something along the way was lost, we need to consider whether in what way what was said to be lost was even present, but also whether our understanding of the universe should include models of the divine, what that means, and what they are.

Are we just going to go through the whole dance again? — Isaac

We would not have gone through it the first time if not for your penchant for disputation. I said the vaccines were safe and effective. Authoritative sites support that claim.

Safe and effective are not binomial measures. — Isaac

A favorite ploy. You have done this several times, arguing against your own claim as if I had made the claim.

Regarding safety and efficacy a quick search led to results including the following.

Some are of the misguided belief that safety and efficacy will not be established prior to FDA authorization.

COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/safety-of-vaccines.html

All three vaccines authorized for emergency use by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have been thoroughly tested and found to be safe and effective in preventing severe COVID-19. They continue to undergo continuous and intense safety monitoring.

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/is-the-covid19-vaccine-safe#:~:text=Vaccine%20for%20Coronavirus%3A%20Is%20it,continuous%20and%20intense%20safety%20monitoring.

Several COVID-19 vaccines are authorized for emergency use by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA). These vaccines were shown to be safe and effective in clinical trials. They were developed, tested and authorized using the same rigorous process used for other successful vaccines.

These vaccines also passed independent review by medical experts in the Scientific Safety Review Workgroup, as part of the Western States Pact (English only). See our FAQs for more information.

Data show the COVID-19 vaccines are safe, and serious side effects are rare.

https://www.doh.wa.gov/Emergencies/COVID19/VaccineInformation/SafetyandEffectiveness

rigorous clinical trials have proven that they’re safe and effective.

https://healthy.kaiserpermanente.org/health-wellness/coronavirus-information/vaccine-learn/safe-and-effective

The interest in understanding this place where we are born, taken by itself, argues against seeing them as separate sets of models. — Valentinus

Doesn't that depend on one's interests? Someone who takes no interest in talk about gods will see them as separate, with scientific models being appropriate for investigation and theological models as inappropriate.

The anthropomorphic element is an important criteria to employ when comparing models of the divine. — Valentinus

What do you think is the relationship between models of the divine and models of the origin of the universe?

What’s the difference between full approval and an EUA?

It’s one of scale. FDA will review much more data, covering a longer period of time, before granting full approval. “It’s not a huge difference, but it is a real difference,” Goodman* says. The agency will analyze additional clinical trial data and consider real-world data on effectiveness and safety. It will inspect manufacturing facilities and make sure quality control is very strict. “It’s an exhaustive review,” Goodman says.

* Jesse Goodman, a former chief scientist at FDA who’s now at Georgetown University.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/07/when-will-covid-19-vaccines-be-fully-approved-and-does-it-matter-if-they-are

On Wednesday, President Joe Biden told CNN's Don Lemon during a CNN Townhall that he expects Covid-19 vaccines could get full approval "quickly."
"They're not promising me any specific date, but my expectation, talking to the group of scientists we put together... plus others in the field, is that sometime, maybe in the beginning of the school year, at the end of August, beginning September, October, they'll get a final approval," Biden said.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/22/health/covid-19-vaccine-approval-when/index.html

You have not given a single reason why you think it will not be approved.

Rather than repeat myself I will leave it there.

That relegates the work the FDA are doing to work that is of no consequence to the safety of the public. — Isaac

This is your misunderstanding that you attribute to me.

The matter at hand is whether the remaining work the FDA has to do prior to approval has any impact on reducing the risks faced by the public with regards to the vaccine. — Isaac

The only way it would reduce the risk is if something previously unknown or undisclosed were to come to light in the next few weeks. It is unreasonable to assume that the FDA is hiding things from us, allowing vaccination to continue for the next few weeks only to deny approval.

Again, the terms we use are irrelevant. — Isaac

And yet you took exception to the use of the term bureaucratic. It is your "quibbling over semantics" that started this discussion.

quote="Isaac;576757"]It's the 'wasting time' that matters.[/quote]

Again, your accusation.

Do you think the FDA are carrying out any work at all which reduces the risk to the public from the vaccines? — Isaac

As I have said, most of the work has already been done, but they must be thorough and complete the job.

I'm not sure what it is about my responses that's given you the impression I'm unaware of what the FDA's role is since I cited their own lawyer explaining it, but I appreciate the effort nonetheless. — Isaac

I am not going to chase down what you quoted in another thread.

You said earlier in this thread:

It was the relegation of important investigations by dedicated scientists to 'bureaucracy'. — Isaac

I think the problem may be your lack of understanding of what a bureaucracy is. The FDA's function is bureaucratic.

1. The FDA have yet to perform some of these checks which may lead to them rejecting the product on the basis of their evaluation of the trial results. — Isaac

At this point it is no longer just trial results. Millions of doses of the vaccine have been administered. The protocol for a trial is very different from actual use. The main difference is that no one is receiving a placebo. The FDA is no longer looking at just trial results.

2. The FDA have no more checks to do that could lead to them them rejecting the product on the basis of their evaluation of the trial results. They're just wasting time doing paperwork which cannot possibly make any difference to the decision. — Isaac

It is a bureaucratic process. It takes time. I don't know what you think "paperwork" means as part of this process.

If there are serious problems or even suspected problems with either safety or efficacy that have come to light, the FDA and/or the vaccine manufacturers would already have stopped using the vaccine, at least temporarily. It is highly unlikely that anything yet unknown will come to light in the next few weeks before approval.

What, if not just documentation, do you think the FDA are doing in their full approval process? — Isaac

Perhaps this might help

Conducting clinical trials to see if a drug is safe and effective can be a very time-consuming process. To meet the urgent demand for effective therapies, FDA has worked with clinical trial experts to rapidly advance best practices in the design and execution of clinical trials. Today, we’re providing industry guidance for creating master protocols (an overarching protocol designed to answer multiple questions) when evaluating drugs for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19.

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-brief-fda-provides-guidance-master-protocols-evaluating-prevention-treatment-options-covid-19#:~:text=%E2%80%9CDuring%20this%20global%20pandemic%2C%20the,a%20very%20time%2Dconsuming%20process.

The clinical trial experts are from the pharmaceutical industry and academia, not the FDA. The FDA's main job is not to conduct clinical trials but to review and either approves or rejects the products based on their evaluation of the trial results.

"4.023...The proposition constructs a world with the help of a logical scaffolding" — Antony Nickles

What do you think this means? The statement continues:

so that one can actually see from the proposition how everything stands logically if it is true. One can draw inferences from a false proposition.

Whether a proposition is true or false is determined by reality, by what is the case, a state of affairs, the facts.

But he is not stating the "structure of the world" (a priori or otherwise), he is dictating the terms for the structure of language. — Antony Nickles

The structure of language is also the structure of the world:

What every picture, of whatever form, must have in common with reality in order to be able to represent it at all—rightly or falsely—is the logical form, that is, the form of reality. (2.18)

"The world is the totality of facts, not of things." (1.1; Ogden) — Antony Nickles

The point is that the underlying structure of the world is logical rather than physical.

He goes on to say:

A state of affairs (a state of things) is a combination of objects (things) (2.01).

The sense of "reality" is created by Witt's imposed criteria of logic. — Antony Nickles

It is not imposed criteria, logic is what he took to be the underlying structure of language and the world.

But this sense of truth is a phantasm. As he will say later in PI — Antony Nickles

The passage from PI is not about the truth of propositions about the world, it is about sensations.

Socrates expected to find something else in Anaxagoras because Anaxagoras says that Mind directs and causes all things. He assumes that Mind is like his mind and its cause like his. What he expected was an explanation for why it is best that things are as they are. But not only did Anaxagoras fail to provide such an explanation, Socrates himself failed. He goes on to tell of his "second sailing", his investigation by means of accounts, logoi. He posits the Forms as hypotheticals with the Good as their cause. He orders the world according to his own mind not Mind.

What source are you using for your assertion that the full approval process consists of only 'documenting' that which is already known. — Isaac

That is your assertion not mine.

The point is simply that the absence of any negative reports is not the same thing as an investigation to determine safety. — Isaac

The investigation has been ongoing from the start. It include both positive and negative reports.

You said it had already been shown to be 'safe and effective' by the FDA. — Isaac

I did not say that. I said it has been shown to be safe and effective, not that the FDA has shown it to be safe and effective.

It's not that complicated, full approval checks... — Isaac

That does not address my question: What problems can you cite that will lead them to deny approval?

So the problems would be some limit to efficacy, a risk in the manufacturing process, or some methodological error in the follow up trials. — Isaac

And where do you see evidence of such problems?

this is not about competing opinions — Antony Nickles

For me it is about trying to understanding Wittgenstein.

take the criteria of logic and create a "world" from just that — Antony Nickles

His argument is a priori, but it is not about creating a world, it is about the transcendental conditions and a priori structure of the world and language and what is beyond them.

Your definitions of "the world" and "existence" are stopping you from trying to learn anything before you even begin. — Antony Nickles

I began a long time ago. My dissertation was on Wittgenstein.

I have not given a definition of the world or existence. I am in agreement regarding the limits of the world, but there is a distinction between the world and my world.

With regard to existence you say:

As with "exist"; something like: that you are not aware of, that does not/can not matter to you. — Antony Nickles

Do you mean that it does not "exist" if you are not aware of it or it does not matter to you, that what exists is what does matter to you, what you are aware of? In that case, as I said, the baby's world does exist, even though it is pre-linguistic and more limited. Its hunger matters, the fact that its hunger can be satisfied matters.

So they are wasting their time then? If what they'll find is already known. — Isaac

There is a process in place that must be followed. It still needs to be rigorously documented. That is not a waste of time. That it is is your assumption.

It is, but that's not what a phase IV trial is, nor is it the type of data the FDA are looking at. — Isaac

Phase IV trials are for products that have been approved and are already on the market. Phase IV trails are not the only way that problems are reported. Do you have a point here?

A EUA's terms are that... — Isaac

We are talking about approval. EUA was issued months ago. The question is whether the vaccine will be approved based on the evidence to date.

And you think that role a trivial foregone conclusion? — Isaac

It is not a trivial conclusion. Again that it is trivial is your conclusion. What problems can you cite that will lead them to deny approval?

Are the FDA just wasting time and money looking through data which cannot yield any useful information. — Isaac

The point is that what the find will confirm that the vaccine is safe and effective.

Clinical trials don't just hand out the product and then stand back and wait to see if anyone calls them. — Isaac

It is sometimes the case that a product is approved and then pulled from the market based on problems that are found only when they are used widely and they are called.

'Safe and effective' is not a binomial status. Nothing is without risk. — Isaac

Yes, they are relative terms, but they are the terms used by the FDA.

It's not the optimism I was questioning. It was the relegation of important investigations by dedicated scientists to 'bureaucracy'. — Isaac

First, although research is ongoing, at this point approval is based on work that has already been done. Second, most of that work is done by the pharmaceutical industry and academic institutions. The FDA's role is primarily to compile and evaluate data provided to it.

I would grant that you are right that what can be expressed does not limit what can be seen; that is not the point. — Antony Nickles

When you deny that the world does not yet exist for a baby it seems to me that that is exactly the point. If you connect existing to interests and cares why are you excluding the interests and cares of the baby?

being "seen" does not make the world "exist" in the way that Wittgenstein is talking about here — Antony Nickles

It is not clear to me what way you think he is talking about. It is not that being seen makes the world exist but that the world must exist to be seen.

As an example, you may not exist to the extent you have not expressed anything to differentiate yourself--categorically (in the logic of living) you are "not alive" (living your life), to yourself or to us. — Antony Nickles

This makes no sense to me. I do not recall anything in the Tractatus along these lines. I must exist in order to differentiate myself. Perhaps on a forum like this no one might know I exist until I say something but speaking is not the only one in which I differentiate myself. Where does Wittgenstein talk about the "logic of living"? What does it mean? There are many ways in which I can express myself. Not all of them supported by the logical scaffolding of the Tractatus.

The role of the FDA is to verify that products are safe and effective. There is ample evidence that the vaccine is safe and effective. They are still required to do a thorough review of the data, but if there are problems serious enough to prevent approval they would have become evident by now. See what happened with emergency approval of hydroxychloroquine and a coronavirus antibodies test. An EUA may be issued without the clinical trials necessary for approval, but the millions of vaccines already given is far more than what is given in any clinical trial, far more than is necessary for approval.

Why would you think that? — Isaac

Because it has been shown to be safe and effective.