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
JVL:
I haven’t even looked because it’s clear that almost all working scientists do not think the genetic system was designed.
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. It is also clear, from the lack of peer-review, that not one scientist knows how nature could have produced it. So we can dismiss anyone who says nature did it because they don't have any evidence for it.ET
September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT
Science has delivered the goods. However, unguided evolution has not delivered anything but lies, misconceptions and misrepresentations.ET
September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT
209 JVL
Anyway, science seems to work pretty well most of the time. It certainly has been delivering the goods for the last 150 years or so.
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.Truthfreedom
September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT
Truthfreedom: Donald Hoffman’s Evolutionary Argument Against Reality: if “darwinian evolution” were true, we would not be seeing reality as it is. Maybe. Anyway, science seems to work pretty well most of the time. It certainly has been delivering the goods for the last 150 years or so.JVL
September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed: Can you provide a quote from a “consensus” OoL researcher that actually engages in full the evidence of the symbolic nature of the gene system, its requirements of complimentary constraints and semantic closure in order to begin to function? Nope. I haven't even looked because it's clear that almost all working scientists do not think the genetic system was designed. Maybe they haven't fully engaged or understood the work you reference. Maybe they have looked at it but not felt it ruled out natural processes. It's clear that much of work you reference is considered important and some of it's fairly famous so I still find it odd that so many people come to a different conclusion than you.JVL
September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT
. Can you provide a quote from a “consensus” OoL researcher that actually engages in full the evidence of the symbolic nature of the gene system, its requirements of complimentary constraints and semantic closure in order to begin to function? The closest you might come is likely Koonin talking about the requirement of a “coupled” system — and he concluded that we’ll need an unlimited multiverse in order to give dynamics enough opportunities to produce such a thing. Is this what you had in mind when you talked about the “plausible” evidence of the consensus? I will await your quote.Upright BiPed
September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT
203
I’m not contradicting myself,
Yes, you are. You are asking for scientific *proof* because according to you, "good science" maps reality (over time we get closer and closer to knowing the "outside world"). But then you say science offers "proof of anything".
It seems to reflect observed data pretty well though!
May-be, may-be. Observed data and "reality" are not the same. Remember Hoffmman's simulation? Donald Hoffman's Evolutionary Argument Against Reality: if "darwinian evolution" were true, we would not be seeing reality as it is. We've already talked about this.Truthfreedom
September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT
It is very telling that not one of JVL's working scientists has any clue as to how nature could have produced the genetic code. Not one of them knows how to test that claim. That says it all, really.ET
September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed: That question is posed as a distraction from your double standard, JVL; it doesn’t change the physical evidence or the history of science , and I’ve already answered it. But it does bring up the point that even though the work you reference is widely accepted almost all working scientists have not come to the same conclusion as you regarding the genetic system. Which means either they're missing some point or they're lying. OR you're missing some point that they see or understand; I am quite certain that you are being straight and honest.JVL
September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT
Truthfreedom: “More refined and accurate” means that over time the models get closer to what’s “out there” (World). That’s “proof” that we are correctly maping reality. You contradict yourself again. I'm not contradicting myself, you're claiming I'm looking for proof which I am not doing. Do you always try and tell people what they mean even when they tell you you're incorrect? That's kind of rude isn't it? Oh thanks for the heads-up. Then “darwinian evolution” isn’t proof of anything. It seems to reflect observed data pretty well though! But it clearly isn't complete; new bits and bobs are being discovered all the time.JVL
September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT
200 JVL
Over time the models get more and more refined and accurate.
"More refined and accurate" means that over time the models get closer to what's "out there" (World). That's "proof" that we are correctly mapping reality. You contradict yourself again.
No proof of anything.
Oh thanks for the heads-up. Then "darwinian evolution" isn't proof of anything.Truthfreedom
September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT
. That question is posed as a distraction from your double standard, JVL; it doesn’t change the physical evidence or the history of science , and I’ve already answered it.Upright BiPed
September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT
Truthfreedom: That means you are assuming that science can offer “proof” of how the “outside world” is. It's not proof. We come up with models that mimic what we observe, to some extent. Over time the models get more and more refined and accurate. But they're still only approximations. No proof of anything.JVL
September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed: From physical analysis, the phenomenon in question is the organization of a finite set of rate-independent symbol vehicles in a linear medium, along with a complementary set of physical constraints that use spatial orientation within each symbol vehicle to establish a stands-for relation for each of the individual referents to be conveyed by the system. This semiotic architecture enables capacities that are unique among all physical systems, and its structure is independent of its content. So why do you think that mainstream science hasn't come to the conclusion that the genetic system was designed?JVL
September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT
196 JVL
I’m good with going with the consensus of the scientific community.
That means you are assuming that science can offer "proof" of how the "outside world" is. You are contradicting yourself again.Truthfreedom
September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT
Only morons and fools think that science is done via some consensus. And it is very telling that no one can model unguided evolution. As for knowledge, unguided evolution hasn't helped anyone in that regard.ET
September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT
Truthfreedom: What are you asking for then? I'm good with going with the consensus of the scientific community realising that when there's new data or results or evidence opinions may change. All we can hope to do at any given time is to model reality with our laws and theories and theorems as best we can. But we shall probably always miss some subtleties because our models are only ever approximations. All scientific knowledge is just provisional; that seems confusing and limited but that's what we've got to work with.JVL
September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT
.
You are really desperate to get people to agree with you when the data might lead people to think the other way.
This is more of your (silly) attempt to position me out, i.e. to shoot the messenger. The problem with this is that you yourself are unable to disagree with me. That is one of the great things about recorded history – either The Beatles released the White album in November of 1968 or they didn’t. Either American logician Charles Pierce wrote a theory in the 1860’s about the triadic requirements of signification (symbol/referent/interpretant), or he didn’t. Either Carrol Shelby won Le Mans in 1959 driving an Aston Martin, or he didn’t. Either Alan Turing wrote in 1936 about a universal computing machine based on the use of symbols and their interpretations, or he didn’t. Either Washington Roebling took over for his father to begin construction of the Brooklyn Bridge in 1870 or he didn’t. Either Jon Von Neumann gave a series of lectures in the 1940’s describing open-ended autonomous self-replication based a system of symbols and their interpretations, or he didn’t. Get the idea? Ether Francis Crick predicted an independent set of “adapter” molecules to establish the gene code, or he didn’t. Either Hoagland and Zamecnik confirmed Crick’s prediction in 1958, or they didn’t. Either physicists (and other scientists) such as Howard Pattee, Marcello Barbieri, and others have recognized the thread of understanding from Pierce, to Turing, to Von Neumann, to Crick (and have written about it) or they haven’t. You see, the facts aren’t even in question. They are not even controversial. The gene system is a system of rate-independent symbols and non-integrable constraints. Their unique physical properties have been carefully recorded in the literature as such. You’ve even affirmed this reality. The only thing you want to do now is to outright dismiss a conclusion that falls naturally from the evidence; a conclusion you are otherwise happy to accept. Encoded symbols are a universal correlate of intelligence, unless you don’t want them to be. It’s nothing but a plain old (cheap) double standard, followed by a rash of rationalization.Upright BiPed
September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT
.
Excellent . . . for non-living signals.
You are now just grabbing at straws -- undefined straws with transparently ideological purposes, but without any foundation whatsoever in the physics of symbols systems. From physical analysis, the phenomenon in question is the organization of a finite set of rate-independent symbol vehicles in a linear medium, along with a complementary set of physical constraints that use spatial orientation within each symbol vehicle to establish a stands-for relation for each of the individual referents to be conveyed by the system. This semiotic architecture enables capacities that are unique among all physical systems, and its structure is independent of its content.
Which is the whole basis of your argument.
Not even close.Upright BiPed
September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT
JVL We are awaiting your reply. If you aren't asking for scientific proof (which according to you "does not exist" #153), What are you asking for? Truthfreedom
September 24, 2020
September
09
Sep
24
24
2020
04:30 AM
4
04
30
AM
PDT
Too funny. It isn’t Dembski’s. Even he calls it standard operating procedure. If you understood science you would have known that. And the EF includes probabilities because you and yours have NOTHING of substance. JVL
You’re just putting off dealing with the question with denialist gobblied goop.
'There wasn't any question in your babble. It is a fact that the EF is SoP. It is a fact that the only reason probability arguments exist is because your side has nothing. If you did you would just present it to refute Dembski and Behe. Yet no one has. So the only person being a denialist is you, JVL. Or perhaps you are really that clueless.ET
September 23, 2020
September
09
Sep
23
23
2020
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT
JVL:
Peer review is full of research supporting unguided evolution.
Liar. "Waiting for TWO Mutations" is proof of your lies. The fact that the professional evos @ the Dover trial lied their way through it, is also proof of your lies. There isn't any use having a discussion with you if all you can do is lie.
What ET fails to do is to definitely establish that mutations are guided.
That is done with the obvious intelligent design of the origin of living organisms. What YOU need to do is tell us how it was determined the mutations are blind and mindless, spontaneous events. You can't do that. Not only that you can't show that an accumulation of mutations can produce functional proteins and protein machines. Lenski's LTEE is demonstrating the severe limits of evolutionary change. The fact that someone like Nathan Lents can easily write a book that supports Michael Behe's point about genetic decay (Human Errors), and yet can't write one supporting blind watchmaker's ability to produce what it then breaks, it very telling. No one has been able to expand on the endosymbiotic hypothesis for the origin of eukaryotes. Another very telling sign. And, as pointed out above, peer-review says that evolutionary biologists still have not figured out what determines biological form.ET
September 23, 2020
September
09
Sep
23
23
2020
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT
189 JVL
Like saying I ask for scientific ‘proof’
What are you asking for then?Truthfreedom
September 23, 2020
September
09
Sep
23
23
2020
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
What’s the point of you cluttering the threads asking for “scientific proof” if according to you “scientific proof does not exist”? (#153) I've got some weird voices in my head. They keep saying weird things. Like saying I ask for scientific 'proof' which I have never done. Maybe those voices are just my own devil's advocate keeping me in line. Anyway, if those voices are just part of my internal construct then I don't need to confront them outside of my own psyche.JVL
September 23, 2020
September
09
Sep
23
23
2020
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT
Uprigth BiPed: Hmmmm. What about looking for an encoded high-capacity symbol system? What about a symbol system that not only conveys symbols, but also conveys the key to decode those symbols? Like in the movie Contact Excellent . . . for non-living signals. Which is the whole basis of your argument. Nah wait, surely that’s not designed. We’ll need a double standard to get that one off the table. I get it. You are really desperate to get people to agree with you when the data might lead people to think the other way. So you push and push and push for your very narrow and particular interpretation of things. It all makes sense really.JVL
September 23, 2020
September
09
Sep
23
23
2020
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT
ET: Evidence of work, according to Stanford. Okay, now we're getting somewhere. What does that mean exactly regarding a suspected bone tool? And design is a mechanism. Which means it would demand mechanistic traces and evidence. Clearly. Where is the evidence that energy was used to build my house? Physics. Many. College level. Several. Be specific. What courses exactly. Too funny. It isn’t Dembski’s. Even he calls it standard operating procedure. If you understood science you would have known that. And the EF includes probabilities because you and yours have NOTHING of substance. You're just putting off dealing with the question with denialist gobblied goop. Clearly you have mental issues, JVL. If you guys had something of substance there wouldn’t be any need for probability arguments. What is wrong with you? Peer-review is devoid of evidence for unguided evolution. Textbooks are devoid of evidence for unguided evolution. YOU avoid posting evidence for unguided evolution. The trend is easy to see. Peer review is full of research supporting unguided evolution. It really is. What ET fails to do is to definitely establish that mutations are guided. He can't actually do that so his suppositions fail. Any that promoted dogma, duh. All churches promoted dogma. That's their purpose. Again you choose to fail to answer the actual question. You are a bad witness for your god.JVL
September 23, 2020
September
09
Sep
23
23
2020
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT
JVL What's the point of you cluttering the threads asking for "scientific proof" if according to you "scientific proof does not exist"? (#153) That sounds absolutely deranged. Do you have mental issues?Truthfreedom
September 23, 2020
September
09
Sep
23
23
2020
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT
.
I’m not talking about the stuff that’s clear, I’m talking about things that are iffy. What do you look for?
Hmmmm. What about looking for an encoded high-capacity symbol system? What about a symbol system that not only conveys symbols, but also conveys the key to decode those symbols? Like in the movie Contact !! Nah wait, surely that’s not designed. We’ll need a double standard to get that one off the table. /sarcUpright BiPed
September 23, 2020
September
09
Sep
23
23
2020
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT
JVL:
The first thing an archaeologist looks for when considering an object that may or may not be intelligently designed is .
Evidence of work, according to Stanford.
But implementation would be a mechanistic process.
And design is a mechanism.
So why is there no evidence of that kind of thing having taken place?
Where is the evidence that energy was used to build my house?
Disagreeing with you is not the same thing as being ignorant.
True, but your posts prove that you are ignorant with respect to biology and science.
So, how many biology courses did you take? At what level? At which university?
Many. College level. Several.
Dr Dembski’s explanatory filter is a probability argument!
Too funny. It isn't Dembski's. Even he calls it standard operating procedure. If you understood science you would have known that. And the EF includes probabilities because you and yours have NOTHING of substance. Clearly you have mental issues, JVL. If you guys had something of substance there wouldn't be any need for probability arguments. What is wrong with you? Peer-review is devoid of evidence for unguided evolution. Textbooks are devoid of evidence for unguided evolution. YOU avoid posting evidence for unguided evolution. The trend is easy to see.
Which Church?
' Any that promoted dogma, duh.ET
September 23, 2020
September
09
Sep
23
23
2020
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT
ET: That has nothing to do with whether or not said object was intelligently designed or not. Absolutely it does! The first thing an archaeologist looks for when considering an object that may or may not be intelligently designed is . . . I'm not talking about the stuff that's clear, I'm talking about things that are iffy. What do you look for? We do NOT have to know how before we can determine if it was designed or not. The how always comes after. But implementation would be a mechanistic process. If you think something was designed then clearly implementation took place. Which means there must have been some physical manipulation of raw materials and spending of energy. Which means the energy and raw materials must have come from someplace. Which means something gather or collected the necessary resources and brought them to a particular location to carry out the implementation. So why is there no evidence of that kind of thing having taken place? ]It isn’t a bluff and it is very true. You don’t even understand the basics of biology. Disagreeing with you is not the same thing as being ignorant. So, how many biology courses did you take? At what level? At which university? Again, the reason probability arguments exist is because your side has NOTHING. Too funny. Dr Dembski's explanatory filter is a probability argument! No one forced him to come up with that. If he doubted the ability of unguided processes for being able to bring about life as we know it on Earth he could have chosen lots of different ways of refuting it. He CHOSE to make a probability argument. He's a trained mathematician, he knows how powerful probability arguments can be. I rather doubt he was forced into making a probability argument because his opponents 'had nothing' which, in fact, is not true. In my opinion, Dr Dembski had to make a probability argument because he had no hard physical evidence to support the presence of a designer who he thinks is God. And he knew that just saying it was God would kill off any credibility his idea had in the mathematical and scientific communities. Why hasn’t mainstream been swayed? Because they are biased and very closed-mined. In reality they are as bad, if not worse, than the Church was centuries ago. Which Church? The Christian churches? Would you extend that criticism to Muslims and Jews? What do you say to people who say that science derived from a Christian world view?JVL
September 23, 2020
September
09
Sep
23
23
2020
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 10

Leave a Reply