On Monday, August 10, 2020 at 1:05:19 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 7 Aug 2020, at 20:41, PGC <multipl...@gmail.com <javascript:>> wrote: > > > > > Many? You're joking right? You can have a ton of references to PrEP, PEP, > or alternatively conceived and designed type studies and it's everybody's > right to believe in them and to take that medication if they wish. If folks > want to confuse quantity with quality, that's their choice. > > It's you guys that are following references/names without a guiding > principle/standard as you'll accept anything that goes in your discursive > direction, with Christian "if they lied to us, then they are liars" type > judgements embedded in the assumptions of your statements. What does that > ever indicate? > > I'll side with the more cautious and qualitative notion of effective in > terms of well designed, large randomized controlled clinical trials. It's > you guys that are following references/names without a guiding > principle/standard as you'll accept anything that goes in your discursive > direction. PGC > > > > That makes sense for academic research, but the real-life doctors cannot > way for an academical response in urgent situation, and that is the context > of the HCQ/remdesevir domain, where many argument against the work of > Didier Raoult was nothing by a sort of harassment, not by its peers, but by > media, >
Again, you do not appear aware of current events: Since about 2 weeks Raoult is suing Martin Hirsch for "dénonciation calomnieuse". Apparently, some of his peers in France do not share his views. His supporters will see this as vindication and proof of systemic corruption of the medical profession in France and the world, while his peers, that view his claims with skepticism, see it differently. > a bit with the argument “Trump said it so it has to be false”. That > argument certainly makes some sense, but is not conclusive, especially when > the opponents (the FDA) has a tradition of lies in the domain. > Any system finds itself in a constant flux either towards or away from truth. All human systems or organizations, defined as a collection of persons performing some discreet function that distinguishes itself from the broader environment, are therefore liars by default. Would everybody be in a better position because they judged their governments as corrupt, thereby refusing to use streets, roads, infrastructure, water, food, internet, and health services on the basis of past discrepancies with truth? The establishment of doubt as an absolute scientific principle appears simplistic to me. Doubt is but of one of many instruments to arrive at what is constitutive for science: analysis that aspires to objectivity and unbiased evaluation of issues to explain, describe, and, when necessary, to judge them. Critical scientific thinking is more than just an absolutized notion of uncertainty. Particularly in some emergency situation, pure uncertainty leads to lack of any judgement or decision to act. Worse, when it is applied simplistically in some crisis, it delegitimizes everybody as disinformation (which can perfectly be disguised as doubt, as it often is) tends to do. PGC -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4102aca1-8480-45ec-9b02-ff35be68ae1do%40googlegroups.com.
