Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The smog is beginning to clear around hydroxychloroquine

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Revealing the way politics has invaded science all the way down:

We live in a culture that has uncritically accepted that every domain of life is political, and that even things we think are not political are so, that all human enterprises are merely power struggles, that even the idea of “truth” is a fantasy, and really a matter of imposing one’s view on others. For a while, some held out hope that science remained an exception to this. That scientists would not bring their personal political biases into their science, and they would not be mobbed if what they said was unwelcome to one faction or another. But the sordid 2020 drama of hydroxychloroquine—which saw scientists routinely attacked for critically evaluating evidence and coming to politically inconvenient conclusions—has, for many, killed those hopes…

What is unique about the hydroxychloroquine discussion is that it is a story of “unwishful thinking”—to coin a term for the perverse hope that some good outcome that most sane people would earnestly desire, will never come to pass. It’s about how, in the midst of a pandemic, thousands started earnestly hoping—before the science was really in—that a drug, one that might save lives at a comparatively low cost, would not actually do so. Reasonably good studies were depicted as sloppy work, fatally flawed. Many have excelled in making counterfeit bills that look real, but few have excelled at making real bills look counterfeit. As such, as we sort this out, we shall observe not only some “tricks” about how to make bad studies look like good ones, but also how to make good studies look like bad ones. And why should anyone facing a pandemic wish to discredit potentially lifesaving medications? Well, in fact, this ability can come in very handy in this midst of a plague, when many medications and vaccines are competing to Save the World—and for the billions of dollars that will go along with that…

Philosophically, and psychologically, it is a fantastic spectacle to behold, a reversal, the magnitude and the chutzpah of which must inspire awe: a public health establishment, showing extraordinary risk aversion to medications and treatments that are extremely well known, and had been used by billions, suddenly throwing caution to the wind and endorsing the rollout of treatments that are entirely novel—and about which we literally can’t possibly know anything, as regards to their long-term effects. Their manufacturers know this well themselves, which is why they have aimed for, insisted on, and have already been granted indemnification—guaranteed, by those same public health officials and government that they will not be held legally accountable should their product cause injury.

Norman Doidge, a contributing writer for Tablet, is a psychiatrist, psychoanalyst, and author of The Brain That Changes Itself and The Brain’s Way of Healing.

Norman Doidge, “Hydroxychloroquine: A Morality Tale” at Tablet

There’s a good chance that, even though most people don’t directly say it, the reputation of “science” will never recover from this episode. People will disbelieve politely but thoroughly.

Comments
It's so bad JVL that you and your materialist brethren can not defend your position with facts, only with baseless opinions. Darwinian-Naturalism is Pseudo-Science
The biological evolution of Neo-Darwinism can be simply expressed as the process of natural selection acting on random genetic mutation for a long time. In fact, except for point-mutations, all other genetic mutations are non-random. In mathematics, randomness refers to the uncertainty of process results. In order to insist that genetic mutations are random, Neo-Darwinists define the mutation randomness as that mutations occur randomly with respect to whether their effects are useful, this is, they define randomness as the uncertainty of process effects, not the uncertainty of process results. This definition artificially converts all non-random mutations into random mutations. This is an academic fraud, as bad as faking data. Neo-Darwinists’ definition of randomness is not based on facts, but on their Naturalistic position. Naturalism holds that all natural phenomena, including all biological processes, follow the natural laws, so all natural phenomena have or will have scientific explanations without the need for God. From a Naturalistic point of view, driven by directionless and purposeless natural forces, genetic mutations must be random. Darwinian-Naturalism is a pseudoscience under the guidance of philosophy.
Truthfreedom
September 27, 2020
September
09
Sep
27
27
2020
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT
265 JVL
I am not going to take you seriously anymore.
So you are quitting. Ok. :) That shows you have a weak position that you can not defend and you are giving up. Again: apart from your blatant double standards and hypocrisy, general equivocation and word games: do you have anything of substance to bring to the table? Are Mutations Really Random?
So the assumption that genetic mutations are random has, strictly speaking, no empirical basis. Its motivation is merely subjective: many cannot fathom any plausible mechanism that could impart a pattern on the mutations themselves. Compelling as this may sound, lack of imagination and a subjective sense of plausibility aren’t valid reasons to pronounce scientific facts.
Truthfreedom
September 26, 2020
September
09
Sep
26
26
2020
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT
ID is falsifiable. There is a huge difference between being falsifiable and being unable to be falsified. ID's claims can bet tested. Unguided evolution doesn't make testable claimsET
September 26, 2020
September
09
Sep
26
26
2020
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT
JVL:
That is incoherent.
Nope. You are just too stupid to understand it.
Very obviously and many, many times you have stated that it’s not possible for proponents of unguided evolution to prove their point.
And no one can falsify the claim that 1+1=2. No one can falsify the claim that Stonehenge is an artifact.
I’ve asked for better evidence, not proof.
The only "better evidence" is proof. What ID has is by far more than any alternative has.
You are allowed your opinion, no matter how skewed and uninformed it is.
What I said is all facts. Clearly you are the uniformed one here, JVL. It is very telling that you have FAILED to produce any models for unguided evolution. You have FAILED to produce any analogies.
And I know from experience that no matter what evidence is brought to the forum you will claim it’s insuffecient regarding refuting a design inference.
And I know from experience that you are a bluffing fool and a liar. Again, the ONLY reason probability arguments exist is because your side has nothing. IF you did it would just be presented to refute Dembski. The only reason the paper "Waiting for TWO Mutations" exists is because your side doesn't have any experimental evidence to support its claims. If it did they would just be presented to refute Behe.ET
September 26, 2020
September
09
Sep
26
26
2020
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT
Can Darwinism Be Falsified?
The Darwinian narrative isn’t really science. It’s a historical narrative without witnesses. A just-so story. That’s really the bottom line in all this. A bedtime story that comforts atheists is being labeled as science when it’s really just a story.
Truthfreedom
September 26, 2020
September
09
Sep
26
26
2020
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT
265 JVL
That is your opinion.
Other opinions are available. Thank God I care about facts. Again: ZERO proof of "unguided evolution".Truthfreedom
September 26, 2020
September
09
Sep
26
26
2020
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
265 JVL
Your mind is made up, your position is unfalsifiable. Your position is not scientific.
So are "unguided evolution"/ "random mutations". Philosophical garbage. Opinions in the hairdressing. Truthfreedom
September 26, 2020
September
09
Sep
26
26
2020
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT
Truthfreedom: You don’t have a clue about the difference: – methodological naturalism – metaphysical naturalism Maybe I don't. Maybe I do. But you're just shouting me down because I disagree with you. There’s zero proof of “unguided evolution”/ “random mutations”. That is your opinion. Many, many working scientists and philosopers and even theologians disagree. So you have your weird belief about nature creating itself and you being a useless primate and not having free-will and other general self-refuting non-sense. And that’s laughable but you are free to believe childish things. You are assuming a lot of beliefs on my part. Why don't you actually try and deal with what I actually think instead of what you think I should think? Or is that too difficult for you? Is it easier for you to just label anyone you disagree with as a lost and imbecilic person? But to claim science being on your philosophical side? Nuh nuh. Zero, rien, nihil, no way. Philosophical presuppositions (and stupid ones) is what materialists have. That’s all. Seems like you are not actually interested in a dialogue or an honest discussion. Your mind is made up, your position is unfalsifiable. Your position is not scientific. By that criteria I am not going to take you seriously anymore.JVL
September 26, 2020
September
09
Sep
26
26
2020
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT
263 JVL
Your own personal position is unfalsifiable.
So is "unguided evolution".Truthfreedom
September 26, 2020
September
09
Sep
26
26
2020
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT
ET: Still wrong. I have established that although it is falsifiable it is unable to be falsified. I even presented examples- Stonehenge; 1+1=2 and many, many more. Science is loaded with such things. That is incoherent. Ask Truthfreedom. If he has the integrity to answer honestly. Again you have it backwards. I have said exactly what it would take to change my mind. On the other hand you just dismiss all evidence for design and present us with nothing but bluffs, lies and promissory notes. Very obviously and many, many times you have stated that it's not possible for proponents of unguided evolution to prove their point. Therefore, you, personally, have an unfalsifiable position. You have been very, very clear about that. Wow. That’s quite rich from someone demanding proof for Intelligent Design. I've asked for better evidence, not proof. I guess you haven't been paying attention. JVL mentions models- there aren’t any models that demonstrate the efficacy of unguided evolution. OTOH genetic algorithms exemplify the efficacy of telic evolution, ie evolution by means of telic/ guided processes. There aren’t any models nor analogies with respect to unguided evolution in the context of it’s being able to create something more than diseases and deformities. You are allowed your opinion, no matter how skewed and uninformed it is. And I know from experience that no matter what evidence is brought to the forum you will claim it's insuffecient regarding refuting a design inference. And, quite recently, it has been discerned that your own personal position is unfalsifiable. So, honestly, why should anyone spend time discussing any of these issues with you?JVL
September 26, 2020
September
09
Sep
26
26
2020
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT
JVL You don't have a clue about the difference: - methodological naturalism - metaphysical naturalism But the only important part: There's zero proof of "unguided evolution"/ "random mutations". So you have your weird belief about nature creating itself and you being a useless primate and not having free-will and other general self-refuting non-sense. And that's laughable but you are free to believe childish things. But to claim science being on your philosophical side? Nuh nuh. Zero, rien, nihil, no way. Philosophical presuppositions (and stupid ones) is what materialists have. That's all.Truthfreedom
September 26, 2020
September
09
Sep
26
26
2020
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT
Truthfreedom: But you are philosophically illiterate (and not very bright and you bold like a lunatic). You can stop conversing with me anytime. But you don't. Why is that? Sweetheart, do you understand the difference between: – methodological naturalism – and metaphysical naturalism? Yes, I do. AND, Sweetheart, I'm not that kind of guy.JVL
September 26, 2020
September
09
Sep
26
26
2020
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT
JVL mentions models- there aren't any models that demonstrate the efficacy of unguided evolution. OTOH genetic algorithms exemplify the efficacy of telic evolution, ie evolution by means of telic/ guided processes. There aren't any models nor analogies with respect to unguided evolution in the context of it's being able to create something more than diseases and deformities.ET
September 26, 2020
September
09
Sep
26
26
2020
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT
Mac and cheese:
Your comment suggests that there would be a point to some discussions with ET.
Not for people, like yourself and JVL, who only have nonsense to spew, anyway. Unless you like being a proven loser. :razz:ET
September 26, 2020
September
09
Sep
26
26
2020
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT
JVL:
Apparently you don’t understand how science works.
Wow. That's quite rich from someone demanding proof for Intelligent Design. JVL is obviously a hypocriteET
September 26, 2020
September
09
Sep
26
26
2020
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
JVL:
I also noted that it was anti-design.
Yes, but only via bald assertion.
Yes, you have already established that your position is unfalsifiable.
Still wrong. I have established that although it is falsifiable it is unable to be falsified. I even presented examples- Stonehenge; 1+1=2 and many, many more. Science is loaded with such things.
In which case further discussion with you is pointless as there is nothing that would make you change your mind.
Again you have it backwards. I have said exactly what it would take to change my mind. On the other hand you just dismiss all evidence for design and present us with nothing but bluffs, lies and promissory notes. Anyone who can follow along can see that, JVL.ET
September 26, 2020
September
09
Sep
26
26
2020
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT
255 JVL
You can’t ‘prove’ a scientific position. You can only build up enough evidence to make doubt a much less likely stance.
Duh duh. Which is akin to 'prove' a position (enough warrant). But you are philosophically illiterate (and not very bright and you bold like a lunatic). Sweetheart, do you understand the difference between: - methodological naturalism - and metaphysical naturalism?Truthfreedom
September 26, 2020
September
09
Sep
26
26
2020
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT
Truthfreedom: Then, kindly shut up and do not opine about theology. I'm not, you are. I am pointing out what you seem to believe in. If that's not right then please elaborate. No proof then of the Universe “creating itself” (which is ridiculous). No one has a 'proof'. Some have models. Personally, I don't find any of them absolutely convincing. So I'll delay my vote. Nope. Unpredictable by mathematical models and “unguided” are not the same. “Unguided”= unwarranted philosophical assumption. Okay, explain how guided could appear to be random. Or why it would do. So no proof. “Random” has zero meaning. Unpredictable by mathematical models and “random” are not the same. You're clearly not a mathematician. Sigh. Again: zero proof of “unguided evolution” /”the Universe created itself”/ “there is not a Mind out there”. No one has a 'proof'. Apparently you don't understand how science works. Sigh. Mathematics has proofs, science does not. Scientific knowledge is provisional, i.e. subject to revision when new data or evidence is found. You can't 'prove' a scientific position. You can only build up enough evidence to make doubt a much less likely stance.JVL
September 26, 2020
September
09
Sep
26
26
2020
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT
252 JVL
I know nothing about theology.
Then, kindly shut up and do not opine about theology. No proof then of the Universe "creating itself" (which is ridiculous). Thank you.
I think any good university level book on evolution presents lots of good physical evidence that evolution is unguided.
Nope. Unpredictable by mathematical models and "unguided" are not the same. "Unguided"= unwarranted philosophical assumption.
Are you really too lazy to look for the research on this yourself?
So no proof. "Random" has zero meaning. Unpredictable by mathematical models and "random" are not the same. Again: zero proof of "unguided evolution" /"the Universe created itself"/ "there is not a Mind out there". Thank you!Truthfreedom
September 26, 2020
September
09
Sep
26
26
2020
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT
Mac McTavish: You are far too generous. Your comment suggests that there would be a point to some discussions with ET. ? When he gets overly abusive and profane I'll quit but up to that point I find his protestations somewhat amusing since he's been saying the same thing with no real evidence for years and years. You'd think even he would admit that there is no such thing as ID research going on anywhere. You'd think he'd be embarrassed 'cause the ID people with the money (The Discovery Institute for one) aren't actually working hard to support his view. You'd think that even he would begin to realise that ID is not gaining any ground in the scientific community and that maybe they should consider looking for more evidence of at least the presence of a designer. You'd think but . . .JVL
September 26, 2020
September
09
Sep
26
26
2020
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT
Truthfreedom: Nice dodge. Proof of it (an act of creation) not being possible: 1. __________ I know nothing about theology. If you want to believe some undefined and undetected and unsourced being created the whole universe and its laws and then just buggered off to let it all unwind as it would then that's fine with me. Since there is no evidence that that is the case I'll pass. Nor there is any hard physical evidence that establishes evolution is “unguided”. I think any good university level book on evolution presents lots of good physical evidence that evolution is unguided. I don't really feel the need to reiterate things you can go find for yourself. Proof of “random” mutations (not assumptions): Are you really too lazy to look for the research on this yourself? It has everything to do with this thread. Kastrup is showing that the mantra “random mutations” is an assumption without scientific proof. But you can show the undeniable proof of “random mutations” (“proof that according to you, #153, does “not exist”. Lol. Sigh. You want me to spend time tracking down and finding papers and research addressing well-accepted science just so you can nit-pick it and try and deny it? I'll think about it. Here's one early experiment: https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/mutations_07 Gee, this one is from a religious forum: https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/the-evidence-for-random-mutations.207446/JVL
September 26, 2020
September
09
Sep
26
26
2020
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT
248 JVL
Yes, you have already established that your position is unfalsifiable.
So is "unguided evolution".Truthfreedom
September 26, 2020
September
09
Sep
26
26
2020
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT
JVL
Yes, you have already established that your position is unfalsifiable. In which case further discussion with you is pointless...
You are far too generous. Your comment suggests that there would be a point to some discussions with ET. :)Mac McTavish
September 26, 2020
September
09
Sep
26
26
2020
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT
247 JVL
Some deists do say things like that. Are you a deist?
Nice dodge. Proof of it (an act of creation) not being possible: 1. __________
There’s no hard physical evidence it is true. So, it’s a hypothesis that has not been established.
Nor there is any hard physical evidence that establishes evolution is "unguided". Physical proof of "unguided" evolution: 1. __________
Other opinions are available. But since you’ve probably dismissed all the arguments against your stance I doubt I have anything new to add.
Good to know then that neither philosophy nor science are based on opinions, but on facts. Opinions in the hairdressing. Proof of "random" mutations (not assumptions): 1. _________
I’m choosing not to respond since it’s not part of the main point of this thread.
It has everything to do with this thread. Kastrup is showing that the mantra "random mutations" is an assumption without scientific proof. But you can show us the undeniable proof of "random mutations" ("proof" that according to you, #153, does "not exist"). Lol.
And since I consider that mutations being random with respect to fitness is well established. 
What you "consider" and what is true do not have to be the same thing. Proof of "mutations" being random (you need an account of all mutations since life began): 1. _________
You just gotta love people who claim that unobserved science ain’t science asking for something that could not possibly have been observed.
Nice dodge. If it could not have been observed, you don't have the right to claim it's all "random mutations". Proof of "random" mutations (not partial assumptions): 1. _________
Choosing not to respond is not the same as being unable to respond. I decide when I want to respond and how much time I want to spend balanced against the effect I think responding will have.
Nice blah blah/ dodge. Sorry way to announce you have nothing. Proof of "random mutations" (you need the whole account since life began): 1. ________ We're waiting.Truthfreedom
September 26, 2020
September
09
Sep
26
26
2020
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT
ET: JVL, you can’t even follow along. The quote I furnished was in response to your demand. And although they may say stuff about natural selection they still don’t have any evidence for its efficacy. Yes, the quote did address the question nicely. I also noted that it was anti-design. We can dismiss anyone who says that nature produced the genetic code and all it requires. That is because they don’t have any evidence for such a thing nor do they know how to test the claim. Yes, you have already established that your position is unfalsifiable. In which case further discussion with you is pointless as there is nothing that would make you change your mind.JVL
September 26, 2020
September
09
Sep
26
26
2020
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT
Truthfreedom: Why not? What if ‘natural selection’ is part of the process of the design? To not clutter the biosphere for example? Some deists do say things like that. Are you a deist? How could you prove it’s not true? (I have highlighted “prove”, not “assume”). (The “proof” that according to you does not exist, lol). There's no hard physical evidence it is true. So, it's a hypothesis that has not been established. Mmm… “Unguided” evolution is a extraordinary claim with ZERO proof. Other opinions are available. But since you've probably dismissed all the arguments against your stance I doubt I have anything new to add. We’re awaiting your reply to my # 232 (that you have conveniently forgotten). I'm choosing not to respond since it's not part of the main point of this thread and since I consider that mutations being random with respect to fitness is well established. I've got nothing to say that hasn't already been said over and over and over again. Proof of “random” mutations? (considering all mutations since life began): You just gotta love people who claim that unobserved science ain't science asking for something that could not possibly have been observed. It’s very telling that you (a materialist) can not defend your position. Choosing not to respond is not the same as being unable to respond. I decide when I want to respond and how much time I want to spend balanced against the effect I think responding will have.JVL
September 26, 2020
September
09
Sep
26
26
2020
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed: And you are still playing the transparent deception that this conversation is about design versus naturalism. This whole site is about design vs naturalism. It's at the heart of almost everything posted here. It’s embarrassing. If you want to quit, quit.JVL
September 26, 2020
September
09
Sep
26
26
2020
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT
We can dismiss anyone who says that nature produced the genetic code and all it requires. That is because they don't have any evidence for such a thing nor do they know how to test the claim. That JVL can't get that through his thick skull just proves he is on an anti-science agenda.ET
September 26, 2020
September
09
Sep
26
26
2020
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT
JVL, you can't even follow along. The quote I furnished was in response to your demand. And although they may say stuff about natural selection they still don't have any evidence for its efficacy. So that would be a major problem.ET
September 26, 2020
September
09
Sep
26
26
2020
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT
JVL *Crickets chirping.* Chirp, chirp, chirp. Zero proof of "random mutations" then. It's very telling that you (a materialist) can not defend your position.
To demonstrate that the genetic mutations underlying evolution are random, one would need a fairly complete record of (a) the mutations themselves, as they occurred throughout the history of life on Earth, including those discarded by natural selection; and (b) the corresponding phenotypic characteristics. Only then could one run a randomness test to verify that no phenotypic trends are present before natural selection plays its role. Of course, the fossil record is far too sparse to allow for such a test. https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2019/08/evolution-is-true-but-are-mutations.html
Kastrup is an intelligent man. :)Truthfreedom
September 26, 2020
September
09
Sep
26
26
2020
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT
1 2 3 10

Leave a Reply