Should We Always Trust Experts and Dismiss Nonexperts?

_{Barry Arrington

April 9, 2020

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

This article makes a tremendous amount of sense.

Academic credentials are important, if only because they provide a useful heuristic to learn more about a topic. Since you have to start somewhere, it makes sense to listen first to the people who are paid to teach and research that topic. Ultimately, however, the validity of scientific claims depends on the arguments and evidence in their favor.

Thus, if someone makes a claim he can’t substantiate with good arguments and evidence, his credentials should not matter. Conversely, even if someone has no credentials, without evidence of substantive incompetence, this is not a reason to reject his claims.

Comments

F/N: Followup to 36, on case based reasoning: https://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2016/03/30/the-case-for-case-based-reasoning/ KFkairosfocus_{April 12, 2020
April
04
Apr
12
12
2020
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PST}

PS: The comments thread is a capital illustration of the sort of polarisation I have been pointing to. And oh, yes, it brings up issues of fallacy of confident manner while setting up and knocking over strawman caricatures. Where BTW, inductive logic cannot deliver proof, apart from a weakened sense, where in general scientific explanations cannot rise to moral certainty. To be specific, ANOVA and double blind, control group placebo studies do not deliver strong sense proof. So, part of the problem is, our logic and epistemology are weak.kairosfocus_{April 12, 2020
April
04
Apr
12
12
2020
01:31 AM
1
01
31
AM
PST}

EG, Unfortunately, it starts with a strawman caricature: "if only THE SCIENTISTS would get out of the way . . . " It lost me at that point. The people who are reporting tests, case studies and protocols are medical doctors and research scientists. Starting with the leading relevant scientist in France. No true Sassenach doesn't hack it. Similarly, to characterise evidence as "initial anecdotes" in a context of "Science does not work that way . . . " manifests the strawman caricature fallacy. Someone has not done his homework well enough to responsibly describe the side/case he obviously opposes and we see clear signs of the connexion to evolutionary materialistic scientism and its selective hyperskepticism trying to substitute for prudence. That's within one minute. Polarising fail, at the outset. I forced myself to waste time viewing, in order to make a wider point. He goes on to a simplified survey of possible action mechanisms of the CQ family, then transitions to oh, you don't have clinical trials proof that this will work on SARS2 in the human body. Contradiction, he misreports in vitro by Raoult that it does kill SARS2, and glides over his earlier note as to how well this family of compounds gets into the body and its cells, with ability to fight invaders . . . in short, it is a promising broad spectrum anti pathogen. Also, he fails to address significance of, reducing cytokine storm. Where, of course converging evidence INCREASES likelihood beyond mere addition. The interlocking, mutually supportive whole is greater than the sum of its parts. And, we need to address the issue of a health emergency in which criteria for decision shift drastically because consequences of Type I and Type II errors shift. Here, on Type I [HCQ fails to directly kill SARS2], it is still a proved anti-inflammatory known to work in the body thus likely to help stave off a fatal cytokine storm. On Type II error, you refuse to use such a proved anti-inflammatory which also kills the virus in several possible ways. Where, BTW, a main reason why Chinese doctors tried the CQ family in the first instance was to address cytokine storms. Direct antiviral action is an additional effect. Also, by April 10, it wasn't "one small study from France" and more -- yet more strawman tactics. Where, too, pharmacology is the study of poisons in small doses and the CQ-HCQ family has been managed routinely for safety for 60+ years; the suggestion unsafe is out of order given what is already in the recent record from say the Lupus Society people as Dr Oz reported. The Type II error propagates into lending to peaking behaviour of the epidemic, with consequences of overwhelmed health care systems. Decision-making under the press of the equivalent of a world war is drastically different from decision outside of such a crisis. That insight is part of what returning to the cardinal virtue and charioteer of the virtues, prudence, brings to the table. KFkairosfocus_{April 12, 2020
April
04
Apr
12
12
2020
01:05 AM
1
01
05
AM
PST}

Ed proves that he is incapable of following the discussion. We have already discussed the drugs ability to do what is in the video, Ed. At least TRY to keep up. That part was in the first links from "Watts Up With That".ET_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
08:48 PM
8
08
48
PM
PST}

KF, here is a video that might be of interest with respect to hydroxychloroquine. https://youtu.be/va6j4JITJoEEd George_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
08:15 PM
8
08
15
PM
PST}

Here is one doctor's recommendations to his peers on how to treat the disease. He publishes it on the site of a medical school. https://www.evms.edu/media/evms_public/departments/internal_medicine/EVMS_Critical_Care_COVID-19_Protocol.pdf This is from the Eastern Virginia Medical School. It is quite extensive. I got it from the latest MedCram video.
Thank you, Jerry
You are welcome. It is amazing how many post things without doing any reading from different sources.jerry_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PST}

JS01, Recession, yes; depression or collapse and stagnation, not likely. Not unless there is massive depopulation and chaos comparable to the collapse of the Western Roman Empire or some sort of Zombie movie. Which is truly unlikely. Germany and Japan were back in business as growing states within a few years of WW2. KFkairosfocus_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PST}

@Jstanley01
not to mention extent of nuclear weapon stocks around the world.
Could a philosophical naturalist clarify if mass killings using nuclear weapons constitute: a) 'natural selection'? b) 'artificial selection'? It surely there is a change in the allele frequencies after the event. Since we are animals and we have evolved, the 'ToE' has to offer some explanation.Truthfreedom_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PST}

@55 Ed George
and given that it is being so widely prescribed in the US
You know the number of people who are receiving HCQ? Please do share!Truthfreedom_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PST}

KF @ 59: Indeed, we already decided to take the risk. Except I would argue that we went through the fence and over the edge in a fog, so it's hard to know while still in midair what the damage will be. History shows a range of possibilities:
The Three Categories of Economic Downturns Known to History 1) Recessions – are short-wave (business cycle) inventory events which occur every 7-10 years. They are caused by the overcapacity that builds up during economic booms. Fiscal stimulus (increased government spending) and monetary reflation (printing money) may work at the margins. Recessions may be sharp but are relatively short (months). Examples: The business-cycle recessions in the United States since World War II. 2) Depressions – are long-wave debt crises which occur about once a generation, usually following and/or preceding wars. They are caused by the cascading defaults that ensue when an economy can no longer service its debts and maintain the value of its currency at the same time. Depressions are relatively long (years). Examples: The Weimar Republic Hyperinflation 1921-25, The Great Depression 1929-42. 3) Destitution – is the state of an economy that fails to rebound over decades due to non-cyclical civilization-ending events. Destitution is caused by invasion, pandemic, famine, or some combination thereof, which results in governmental and societal collapse usually accompanied by a demographic collapse. Destitution remains permanent until a new civilization emerges. Examples: The Bronze Age Collapse, The Fall of Rome, The Conquest of the Aztec Empire.
Number 1 is what our President has gone all-in on. Number 2 seems likely to me. Number 3 cannot be ruled out, given the possibility of deadlier second and third waves, not to mention extent of nuclear weapon stocks around the world. Personally at this point, I wouldn’t rule out any of the above along with whatever permutations in between.jstanley01_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PST}

Thank you, Jerry. Those medcram videos are great!ET_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PST}

I have repeatedly stated that I support its use in a hospital setting
I believe that some are arguing rather logically that the hospital is the wrong time to prescribe and a wise management of the disease is to get it early. Thus, it should be done before hospitalization is needed. The real solution to this crisis is preventing someone who has the virus from needing hospitalization. This particular video is about how to enhance the immune system. But it ends up analyzing the advantages of reducing the number of those needing hospitalization. And these advantages are extremely positive in lessening death from the disease and especially demands on the hospital system. However, if the patient gets to the hospital with the disease and did not receive prior treatment, then by all means give them the treatment. But that is sub-optimal. MedCram which is a US medical site for doctors and medical professionals has been advocating this for weeks. https://www.youtube.com/user/MEDCRAMvideos/videos Start at 1:45 of this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1LHgyfPPQ8&t=942sjerry_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PST}

JS01, you raise good points. I would speak of economic damage rather than risks, though: it's that certain. Unfortunately, it was arguable that absent strict social isolation under war-like conditions, up to 40 millions might otherwise have died; comparable to the European phase of WW2. The toll for Spanish Flu speaks to that. My own view is that a serious economic casualty had to be taken one way or another once this disease broke out internationally, and I am by no means sure that the losses otherwise would be lower than what we face now; and while a bad flu season is a comparative, this could easily have been far worse, indeed, chatter on how it damages red blood cells and organs should raise some concern. Sometimes, you have a choice of frying pan or fire. Even now, there is a significant issue of follow on waves. That is part of why finding effective treatments is so urgent. A vaccine is not coming along in a hurry. The good news is, once a lid is put on it, economies will begin to come back, especially the US and Chinese economies that now seem to be primary global drivers. (I'm not sure whether India has a full seat in that club yet.) KFkairosfocus_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PST}

EG, I could do a full bore roll the tape but why do so. The point is, that in 52 you claimed, regarding HCQ "it has not undergone efficacy testing." That is false, based on around the world testing that has been noted on here at UD for weeks, and I called you on it. Moreover, there is an issue that there is a call based on experience, to recognise that once symptoms emerge, early treatment with a cocktail makes a big difference (never mind, that later treatment also helps), which cuts across your [in-]hospital remarks. I have particularly noted from Dr Oz, on how an outpatient test parallel to that of Prof Raoult, was stopped by political decision. Dr Zelenko's work is also directly relevant. KFkairosfocus_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PST}

Having shut down the economy based on expert medical opinion, one question begs itself: What do medical experts know about the risks associated with shutting down an economy compared to anyone else? In fact, an expert in one field is a mere layman in all other fields, including medical experts regarding economics. Consider that one expert, from his vantage point, may calculate that swerving to avoid a tree and running into a fence instead is self-evidently superior to hitting the tree. Where another expert, from her vantage point, sees that just beyond the fence there is a 200-ft. cliff. If there is one criticism that economists have leveled -- some of whom claim to know Trump – it is that nobody talked to them about the economic risks before taking drastic action. See: John Taylor: COVID-19 And the Economy | Hoover Virtual Policy Briefingjstanley01_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PST}

Yes, Ed, you do have serious comprehension issues. We don't know the mortality rate. We don't know who was given the treatment.ET_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PST}

KF, do you have a serious comprehension issue? I have repeatedly stated that I support its use in a hospital setting. I believe there is ample evidence to support this. Where I would draw the line at this point is prescribing it to people with minor symptoms until a full clinical trial has been completed. But again, if it had significant curative powers, and given that it is being so widely prescribed in the US that there are shortages, I would have expected to see a reduction in mortality rates by now. This has not happened. Canada, which does not allow it to be prescribed for COVID-19 and a higher median age, has a lower mortality rate.Ed George_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PST}

EG, the drug has been repeatedly tested. All over the world. The time for belittling that is over. KFkairosfocus_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PST}

F/N, OT: Women of the Gulag, a reminder https://www.the-american-interest.com/2020/04/11/the-forgotten-women-of-the-gulag/ KFkairosfocus_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PST}

KF, there are enough doctors in the US using it that it is in short supply. That strongly suggests that a significant fraction of those infected are getting it. Yet we still see a higher mortality in the US than in Canada. This in spite of the fact that Canada is not using the drug and the median age in Canada is higher than that in the US, putting more Canadians at a higher risk because of their age. Don’t get me wrong, I am all in favour of using this drug in the hospital as long as the patients are informed that it has not undergone efficacy testing. Under those conditions, if I were hospitalized, I would agree to the treatment.Ed George_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PST}

Just because it, hydroxychloroquine, has been approved for use doesn't mean it is being widely used. And it needs to be used in conjunction with zinc for maximum effect- that's what the science says, anyway. IOW Ed George argues from ignorance, as usual. We don't know what the death rate is because we don't know the numbers of infected. We don't know the number of people taking any form of chloroquine.ET_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PST}

EG, we are seeing a stout resistance to its use and even political stopping of studies. I suspect a good number of doctors in such an ambulance chasing society will therefore shy away from it; especially from early treatment. However, from the obvious small minority there are indicators of good results consistent with results elsewhere. KFkairosfocus_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PST}

BA77, I have put up your graph alongside a couple of others that help give context. KFkairosfocus_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PST}

KF@45, Hydroxychloroquine has been approved for use in US hospitals for a while. If it was very effective we would expect to see a lower fatality rate as compare to a country that does not use it. The fatality rate in the US currently stands at 3.8%. Canada, which has a similar criteria for testing, and a similar proportionate number of the population tested, currently has a fatality rate of 2.5%.Ed George_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PST}

BA & JVL, OWID is indeed great, and I have been using its work. KFkairosfocus_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PST}

Earth to Bob O'H- as an evolutionist you don't have any idea how science is done.ET_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PST}

BO'H: over several weeks UD has posted several fact-driven articles on Covid-19. One of the relevant facts has been that over about five days, the HCQ cocktail causes a steady, strong decline to zero. It is a bit sad that you are not familiar with that key observation, which he and others have put up in both French and English. It is then worse that you take that as an excuse to refuse to address the underlying logic behind inductive reasoning and why we see lawlike regular patterns in the world. Okay, we cannot stop you from doing that, but we can draw our own conclusions. KFkairosfocus_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PST}

Bob O'H says that I am
"oblivious to your cluelessness about how science is actually done."
This is especially rich coming from a Darwinist, Bob O'Hara, contrary to the dream world ivory tower that you live in, the fact that you are a Darwinist, in and of itself, proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that you would not know real science if it bit you on the rear end. Again, if I met someone like you, who ignores evidence when it does not suit his preferences, working at the Chemical factory where I worked in Texas, I would fire them immediately and do my damnedest to see that they never worked in the gulf coast area again. As far as real science is concerned, and how it actually operates in the real world, you are a danger to yourself and everyone else around you. Again, you would not real science if it bit you on the rear end!bornagain77_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PST}

@Kairosfocus 30:
(JT) Prof Raoult heads a leading institute and doubtless is doing many papers in parallel, where, he is publishing with colleagues. In short the evidence you point to implies that his research factory is working well, thank you. As you full well know, as an experienced researcher.
What an stylish punch in the face. :) This is why our adversaries hate D. Raoult, because he (among countless others), has proven their beloved Bearded god/ barnacle collector was wrong. That is why they resort to slander. Read and relish yourself (peer-reviewed):
"Moreover, Karl Popper claimed that the theory of evolution was not a scientific theory (Popper, 2002). From our point of view, the theory of evolution is a scientific theory however it is an outdated theory. Darwin's theory should not become a religion but remain a scientific theory from another era that can be refined based on the actual insights from microbial genomics." Vicky Merhej and Didier Raoult
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3428605/#!po=27.5974Truthfreedom_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PST}

@41 Bob O'H Giving up? It sounds like that.Truthfreedom_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PST}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply