3 ms·

So your starting position is that "medical experts", lacking trials, are de-facto correct. That's not logical in and of itself. There are countless examples thr

So your starting position is that "medical experts", lacking trials, are de-facto correct. That's not logical in and of itself. There are countless examples throughout history of "medical experts" majority opinions being revised down to the level of barbaric - yet at the time they were considered by most people, similar to you, to be de-facto correct.

carbocation 16y ago
Well, yes. In a disagreement, it is much more likely that domain experts are correct than that you are correct. Whenever you find this not to be the case, I would highly encourage you to take full advantage of the substantial opportunity. With regards to "barbaric" medical practice, you seem to be conflating pre-scientific medicine with scientific medicine. "Experts" in ritualistic pre-scientific medicine probably knew no more about disease than did the completely uninformed. They were not "experts" in any meaningful sense. And, indeed, had someone been around practicing evidence-based medicine at that time, they could have completely changed the world. As much fun as it is to talk philosophically about this, there are actually plenty of people who have wondered about vaccine administration. From my reading of the articles, the evidence does not show meaningful adverse effects from the practice of multiple vaccination. I'd encourage you to do your own reading on the topic.
- OpieCunningham 16y ago
  > With regards to "barbaric" medical practice, you seem to be conflating pre-scientific medicine with scientific medicine. Firstly, no I'm not. Secondly, you seem to believe scientific medicine is effectively infallible. Nearly every day a new study indicates studies performed just a year or two or ten ago are inaccurate. Indeed, that is the very nature of science. What we're discussing here is logic. It is not logical to accept the opinion of a medical expert, particularly without trials. This is precisely why most people will undertake the logical next step and seek a second opinion. Ultimately, certainty is impossible but blind acceptance is rarely ever wise and always illogical.
  - carbocation 16y ago
    But what is the logical default? Is it to space out vaccinations, or is it to run them all together? There is no "logical" answer to that question, which is why we have to turn to domain specific knowledge. The fact that there is turnover in medical knowledge does not mean that your personal preference carries the same weight as evidence or even expert consensus.

carbocation 16y ago

Well, yes. In a disagreement, it is much more likely that domain experts are correct than that you are correct. Whenever you find this not to be the case, I would highly encourage you to take full advantage of the substantial opportunity. With regards to "barbaric" medical practice, you seem to be conflating pre-scientific medicine with scientific medicine. "Experts" in ritualistic pre-scientific medicine probably knew no more about disease than did the completely uninformed. They were not "experts" in any meaningful sense. And, indeed, had someone been around practicing evidence-based medicine at that time, they could have completely changed the world. As much fun as it is to talk philosophically about this, there are actually plenty of people who have wondered about vaccine administration. From my reading of the articles, the evidence does not show meaningful adverse effects from the practice of multiple vaccination. I'd encourage you to do your own reading on the topic.

OpieCunningham 16y ago
> With regards to "barbaric" medical practice, you seem to be conflating pre-scientific medicine with scientific medicine. Firstly, no I'm not. Secondly, you seem to believe scientific medicine is effectively infallible. Nearly every day a new study indicates studies performed just a year or two or ten ago are inaccurate. Indeed, that is the very nature of science. What we're discussing here is logic. It is not logical to accept the opinion of a medical expert, particularly without trials. This is precisely why most people will undertake the logical next step and seek a second opinion. Ultimately, certainty is impossible but blind acceptance is rarely ever wise and always illogical.
- carbocation 16y ago
  But what is the logical default? Is it to space out vaccinations, or is it to run them all together? There is no "logical" answer to that question, which is why we have to turn to domain specific knowledge. The fact that there is turnover in medical knowledge does not mean that your personal preference carries the same weight as evidence or even expert consensus.