> On 10 Aug 2020, at 22:05, PGC <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Monday, August 10, 2020 at 1:05:19 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 7 Aug 2020, at 20:41, PGC <[email protected] <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.
I am unable to interpret this. French politics is stacked in between the Muslim Brotherhood (ignored by the left in America, but those are authentic nazi, since 1942) and “big-pharma” (which controls a lot in some European countries, like Belgium and France). > > 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. Being wrong does not mean being lying. If a sincere “flatist” says that Earth is not flat, he is lying, despite saying the truth. Lying is just saying the contrary of our own belief with the intent to manipulate some other. > 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 There is no need to abslotise doubt. I insist on doubt only because 1500 years of separation of theology and science makes some people believe that science = truth (when science = doubt) and that religion is necessary bs, which does not need to be the case, as everyone has a religion when the term is used in the platonic sense. Doubt is important, as public certainly is close to madness, more so in the fundament ontology problems. Bruno > > -- > 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 [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4102aca1-8480-45ec-9b02-ff35be68ae1do%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4102aca1-8480-45ec-9b02-ff35be68ae1do%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0778DCAB-15AC-4937-987C-E5639A1B14F2%40ulb.ac.be.
