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
239 JVL
Both are extraordinary cases and would require extraordinary evidence.
Mmm... "Unguided" evolution is a extraordinary claim with ZERO proof. We're awaiting your reply to my # 232 (that you have conveniently forgotten). Proof of "random" mutations? (considering all mutations since life began): 1. __________Truthfreedom
September 25, 2020
September
09
Sep
25
25
2020
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT
237 JVL
So, no design suggested.
Why not? What if 'natural selection' is part of the process of the design? To not clutter the biosphere for example? How could you prove it's not true? (I have highlighted "prove", not "assume"). (The "proof" that according to you does not exist, lol).Truthfreedom
September 25, 2020
September
09
Sep
25
25
2020
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT
.
Just because I said something does not mean I would trust myself to evaluate the signal or object in question.
No one is suggesting that you personally should bust into SETI and evaluate the signal yourself. When the need to obfuscate causes you to say stupid things and take stupid positions, perhaps it is best to rethink. And you are still playing the transparent deception that this conversation is about design versus naturalism. Deception and obfuscation JVL? It's embarrassing.Upright BiPed
September 25, 2020
September
09
Sep
25
25
2020
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed: in both cases I would wait for knowledgeable scientists in the pertinent field to weigh in on the matter. I don't know exactly what kind of interstellar signal would be sufficient which is why I said "something like . . . "; I'm not even sure how compressed data is evaluated. Anyway, it hasn't happened yet. Likewise I don't know exactly what kind of biological structure would be enough for mainstream biologists to come to a design conclusion and that hasn't happened yet either. Just because I said something does not mean I would trust myself to evaluate the signal or object in question. Which is why I would depend on more knowledgeable views. And, in that way, I am not contradictory. Both are extraordinary cases and would require extraordinary evidence.JVL
September 25, 2020
September
09
Sep
25
25
2020
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT
.
UB: JVL, why do you apply a flagrant double standard to physical evidence in order to deny the inference to intelligence? You actually have that answer, I don’t. JVL: I don’t think so.
You don't know why you apply a double standard? You say things and don't know why you say them?
Doesn’t look like we’ll resolve that disagreement does it?
Not if you apply a double standard in your reasoning and then allow yourself to pretend you don't know why you do and say the things you do and say. This is child-like excuse-making. You are not a child:
-- Double Standard -- JVL: I would not be surprised at all if we find electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings in other solar systems UB: How would we know if we found “electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings”? What would that be? JVL: Something like in the movie Contact. A signal that’s very clearly NOT produced by unguided processes. A signal which, after inspection, was shown to have compressed data. So you accept encoded symbolic content as a universal inference to the presence of an unknown intelligence in one domain, while immediately denying that same physical evidence in another domain. UB: Why the double standard? JVL: Because there is no plausible designer available
Upright BiPed
September 25, 2020
September
09
Sep
25
25
2020
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT
ET: From the quote you furnished:
This review intends to underline the scientific nature of biosemiotics, and to this purpose, it aims to prove (1) that the cell is a real semiotic system, (2) that the genetic code is a real code, (3) that evolution took place by natural selection and by natural conventions, and (4) that it was natural conventions, i.e., organic codes, that gave origin to the great novelties of macroevolution
So, no design suggested.JVL
September 25, 2020
September
09
Sep
25
25
2020
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed: JVL, why do you apply a flagrant double standard to physical evidence in order to deny the inference to intelligence? You actually have than answer, I don’t. I don't think so. You think I do. Doesn't look like we'll resolve that disagreement does it? Anyway, it is clear that at least some biologists have taken the time to consider the affect of semiotic theory on modern evolutionary theory.and, even if they are a bit fractured in their views, they do not seem to have come to a consensus that the genetic system was designed. I didn't see any statement like that at least. Nor have I seen such a statement by Dr Pattee. I understand why you choose to focus on his work as he seems to garner a lot of respect from others in the field. I'm not sure it is the case that semiotics has not been duly considered by the biological community. At the very least it seems clear that those who have considered it can not come to a clear conclusion. Perhaps that is because those who disagree with design cannot let go of their unguided bias; that's impossible for me or anyone to say without knowing the people personally. All I can go with is their published statements.JVL
September 25, 2020
September
09
Sep
25
25
2020
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT
From the first wikipedia biosemiotics reference: Biosemiotics: a new understanding of life
Biosemiotics is the idea that life is based on semiosis, i.e., on signs and codes. This idea has been strongly suggested by the discovery of the genetic code, but so far it has made little impact in the scientific world and is largely regarded as a philosophy rather than a science. The main reason for this is that modern biology assumes that signs and meanings do not exist at the molecular level, and that the genetic code was not followed by any other organic code for almost four billion years, which implies that it was an utterly isolated exception in the history of life. These ideas have effectively ruled out the existence of semiosis in the organic world, and yet there are experimental facts against all of them. If we look at the evidence of life without the preconditions of the present paradigm, we discover that semiosis is there, in every single cell, and that it has been there since the very beginning. This is what biosemiotics is really about. It is not a philosophy. It is a new scientific paradigm that is rigorously based on experimental facts. Biosemiotics claims that the genetic code (1) is a real code and (2) has been the first of a long series of organic codes that have shaped the history of life on our planet. The reality of the genetic code and the existence of other organic codes imply that life is based on two fundamental processes—copying and coding—and this in turn implies that evolution took place by two distinct mechanisms, i.e., by natural selection (based on copying) and by natural conventions (based on coding). It also implies that the copying of genes works on individual molecules, whereas the coding of proteins operates on collections of molecules, which means that different mechanisms of evolution exist at different levels of organization. This review intends to underline the scientific nature of biosemiotics, and to this purpose, it aims to prove (1) that the cell is a real semiotic system, (2) that the genetic code is a real code, (3) that evolution took place by natural selection and by natural conventions, and (4) that it was natural conventions, i.e., organic codes, that gave origin to the great novelties of macroevolution. Biological semiosis, in other words, is a scientific reality because the codes of life are experimental realities. The time has come, therefore, to acknowledge this fact of life, even if that means abandoning the present theoretical framework in favor of a more general one where biology and semiotics finally come together and become biosemiotics. (bold added)
CHALLENGES THE NORMATIVE VIEWS OF BIOLOGYET
September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT
CHALLENGES THE NORMATIVE VIEWS OF BIOLOGY JVL:
What does that mean exactly? Please back up your answer with evidence from the source and not just your assumptions.
It means it challenges the mainstream views, JVL. Buy a dictionary and learn how to use it.ET
September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT
.
I didn’t say it was the consensus
You posited a double standard in your reasoning and when it was pointed out for anyone with a pulse to see, you started trying to change the subject to design vs the mainstream consensus (of which biosemiotics is surely not part) in order to distract from the glaring fact that your reasoning is fatally flawed. And with all your might, that is still what you are trying to do.
considering aspects of semiotics as they pertain to evolution
Some do and some don’t. Biosemiosis is not a matured discipline; it is broken into factions that have different terms and assumptions. That is why I follow Dr. Pattee, JVL; because he circumvents the biosemiotic rhetoric and follows the physics instead. Did you know any of that about biosemiotics, JVL? No you didn’t. So you posited a flagrant double standard in your reasoning, and when unable to un-ass yourself of that double-standard, you appealed to a scientifically irrelevant mainstream consensus as a transparent dodge, then found out that they don’t even consider the physical conditions of semiosis (which you already affirmed), so then you switched to the outlier Biosemiotics for a new consensus to appeal to, only to find out that there is no consensus in that consensus, all the while you are pumping the false idea that’s this discussion is about design versus naturalism — which it is not. It is about the unvarnished double standard you inject into your reasoning when confronted with the science and history surrounding the symbolic nature of the gene system, and contrasted that with what you will accept as universal evidence in the SETI project. You actually sound like I am arguing that mainstream science believes in design and you are trying to convince me otherwise. The twisting and turning is rampant, and unnecessary. I answered your little stinger question long ago. It remains a distraction. Instead of asking me a question that you can answer yourself, why don’t you be a big boy and answer it. JVL, why do you apply a flagrant double standard to physical evidence in order to deny the inference to intelligence? You actually have than answer, I don’t.Upright BiPed
September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT
JVL There is a challenge from another thread that you have not solved. Regarding this "randomness" thing:
Are Mutations Really Random? "The problem is that evidence for natural selection is not evidence for random mutations: nature will select for survival fitness whether the mutations themselves follow a trend or not. 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. 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. The spirit of scientific investigation is precisely to look for yet-undiscovered natural patterns, thereby implicitly assuming—if anything—that they, in fact, exist. To affirm, on account of subjective dispositions, that genetic mutations are pattern-less is arguably antithetical to the very spirit of science." https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2019/08/evolution-is-true-but-are-mutations.html
Truthfreedom
September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT
ET: CHALLENGES THE NORMATIVE VIEW OF BIOLOGY What does that mean exactly? Please back up your answer with evidence from the source and not just your assumptions.JVL
September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT
Upright BiPed: 3) Biosemiotics is not anywhere even near the consensus OoL researchers you appeal to, and this STILL doesn’t relieve your argument from its flawed double standard. It’s just a distraction. I didn't say it was the consensus but it clearly is a significant area of study and also points out that there are working biologist who have and are considering aspects of semiotics as they pertain to evolution. AND YET they still are NOT coming to a designed conclusion. Why is that do you think? How can it be that there are organisations and journals dedicated to semiotic in biology and yet they still are not coming to a designed conclusion?JVL
September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT
"The field, which challenges normative views of biology, is generally divided between theoretical and applied biosemiotics." CHALLENGES THE NORMATIVE VIEW OF BIOLOGYET
September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT
Actually, there are whole books about biosemiotics. https://web.archive.org/web/20151207062949/http://lucy.ukc.ac.uk/Courses/SE302/ste1/ste1.html And there used to be a journal (it looks defunct now) https://web.archive.org/web/20170922170826/http://see.library.utoronto.ca/pages/SEED_Journal.html Actually, it looks like a lot of biologists have, in fact, considered semiotics and evolution and not come to the conclusion that the genetic system was designed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BiosemioticsJVL
September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT
There isn't one working scientist who can disagree with the design inference for the genetic code on scientific grounds. And we are more than OK with that.ET
September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT
JVL:
But my point is that very, very few have concluded that it was designed.
Your point is a lie because you don't have any idea. Again, the mere fact that there isn't any evidence that nature could do it means the claim can be dismissed. Your alleged scientists lose.ET
September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT
. 1) The attention I think it deserves? IT is a description of the physical system as it actually is. Do you not think it deserves attention? Really, do you not? (This is a rhetorical question, I realize you are unable to answer it in earnest). 2) I am not criticizing you for others, I am pointing out that the irrelevant consensus you pose to distract from your double standard is itself toothless. 3) Biosemiotics is not anywhere even near the consensus OoL researchers you appeal to, and this STILL doesn’t relieve your argument from its flawed double standard. It’s just a distraction.Upright BiPed
September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT
Gosh, it looks like there are a lot of biologists who have considered semiotics. https://www.biosemiotics.org/what-is/ https://www.biosemiotics.org/what-is/publications/JVL
September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT
219 JVL
Again, other opinions are available.
Then it's fantastic news that neither science nor philosophy are based on opinions, but on facts. Opinions in the hairdressing. Truthfreedom
September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT
This particular paper seems to be somewhat in support of design but I've just read the introduction. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286892978_Towards_a_Theory_of_Evolution_of_Semiotic_SystemsJVL
September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT
217 JVL
Oh well.
What a powerful retort! Oh my! Well, then you are trying to gather scientific"proof" to support your materialist philosophy, although you say: "there are no proofs in science or philosophy". Which shows you are an irrational H. sapiens that clutters the threads for the sake of it.
I just didn’t have a reason to look.
See above. You are a waste of time. And we already knew it. But may-be onlookers who don't. And now, they know it. :) We are mopping the floor with you, kiddo.Truthfreedom
September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed: You can’t, because they haven’t, so your irrelevant appeal doesn’t even have any teeth My point was I don't know if they have or nave not given that work the attention you think it deserves. Have you looked to see if they have? There's no point in criticising me for something that others have or have not done. As a distraction from your double standard, you are left to argue that people have come to a different conclusion about evidence they don’t even address. Maybe you should ask some of them to see what they make of it? It seems to me your real argument is with the working scientists who disagree with your conclusion.JVL
September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
ET: Science has delivered the goods. However, unguided evolution has not delivered anything but lies, misconceptions and misrepresentations. Other opinions are available. That is nothing but a cowardly bluff. It is clear that no one has asked the working scientists that question pertaining to the genetic code. Maybe so. Why don't you ask them then? Again- No one has concluded, scientifically, that nature produced the genetic code. No one. No one knows how it was 'created'. But my point is that very, very few have concluded that it was designed. So, at the very least, the vast majority of scientists do not believe we have exhausted the machinations of natural processes. The only people who think that nature didit are people who don’t care about science or reality. Again, other opinions are available.JVL
September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT
JVL is happy to bluff and lie his way through any discussion. Pathetic, really.ET
September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT
Truthfreedom: Duh duh. Then, science “proves” things (your “darwinian” worldview for example). Although you say that “it proves nothing and you don’t ask for proof”. You seem really conflicted, kiddo. Oh well. Lololol! A nice scientific are you. I just didn't have a reason to look.JVL
September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT
. JVL, you weren’t asked if the consensus thinks the system was designed. You make a scientifically irrelevant appeal to consensus, and were then asked to provide a quote from their research demonstrating that they have even engaged the evidence. You can’t, because they haven’t, so your irrelevant appeal doesn’t even have any teeth. As a distraction from your double standard, you are left to argue that people have come to a different conclusion about evidence they don’t even address.Upright BiPed
September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT
214 ET
No one has concluded, scientifically, that nature produced the genetic code.
True. The "unguided" part is not science, it's philosophical speculation. But according to JVL, "there are no proofs neither in philosophy nor in science". Which is quite bizarre. :)Truthfreedom
September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT
Again- No one has concluded, scientifically, that nature produced the genetic code. No one. The only people who think that nature didit are people who don't care about science or reality.ET
September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT
208 JVL
Nope. I haven’t even looked
Lololol! A nice scientific are you.Truthfreedom
September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 10

Leave a Reply