4 ms·

He's a scientist, he's trying to give us facts. What, if anything, we do about it, is up to us.

by rythie 16y ago

swah 16y ago
"Members of the group, joined by two other experts, scored each drug for harms including mental and physical damage, addiction, crime and costs to the economy and communities." In my opinion with this dataset you can only have conclusions about the experts opinion/experiences. If you're measuring harm to the communities, shouldn't you be taking polls at the communities?
- JoachimSchipper 16y ago
  Truth is not democratic. Highly-politicized issues like this should not be decided by polling. And you'll need a better argument than "well, that's just their opinion" to sway me.
  - swah 16y ago
    I'm questioning the fact that these experts (doctors? sociologists?) just scored which drugs they found more dangerous. For starters, effects in the individual and in the community belongs to two completely different areas of expertise.
    - JoachimSchipper 16y ago
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nutt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nutt: "David J. Nutt is a British psychiatrist and neuropsychopharmacologist specialising in the research of drugs which affect the brain and conditions such as addiction, anxiety and sleep." Dr. Les King is a well-respected chemist; I'll let you dig up your own references. Dr. Phillips is specialized in decision procedures and policy-making. Yes, it would make sense to have others look over their conclusions, and yes, at least Nutt and Les King are not sociologists. But both have a long service on various boards on the topic of substance abuse - do you really believe they have no idea what they are talking about, medically or sociologically? Do you really think the Lancet wants to get caught publishing highly controversial rubbish ("link bait")? And all of this is still just a smokescreen - you don't like their conclusions, fine, but then you'll have to point out that they're actually wrong. Calling their authority into question is disingenuous (especially since they have plenty of authority). Their facts may be incorrect, and there is definitely some subjectivity here (how do weigh damage to self in an individualistic welfare state?), but you'll have to offer better arguments than this.
      - jfager 16y ago
        Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. The fact that they are well-credentialed does not excuse the fact that the study in question just flat-out isn't science. It's not reproducible without getting the same group back in a room together, it's based on subjective opinion or subjective interpretation of objective data, and it compares legal substances to illegal substances without offering a principled way to control for the effects of that regulation. Do you really think the Lancet wants to get caught publishing highly controversial rubbish ("link bait")? Um, The Lancet frequently publishes controversial articles. They published (and later retracted) a paper that claimed a link between vaccines and autism, they put out one of the highest death-toll estimates of the Iraq War, and they've called for a complete ban on tobacco products in the UK, to name a few.
        JoachimSchipper 16y ago
        > Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy Yes, but the comment I replied to was questioning their credentials, which is at equally invalid - more so, in this case, since they actually do have quite impressive credentials. With respect to The Lancet: controversy sells, but you still want to have a credible argument. You are right, though, that this isn't exactly objective and independent of current policy. Then again, it may be hard to get such data...

He's a scientist, he's trying to give us facts. What, if anything, we do about it, is up to us.

by rythie 16y ago

He's a scientist, he's trying to give us facts. What, if anything, we do about it, is up to us.

swah 16y ago

"Members of the group, joined by two other experts, scored each drug for harms including mental and physical damage, addiction, crime and costs to the economy and communities." In my opinion with this dataset you can only have conclusions about the experts opinion/experiences. If you're measuring harm to the communities, shouldn't you be taking polls at the communities?

JoachimSchipper 16y ago
Truth is not democratic. Highly-politicized issues like this should not be decided by polling. And you'll need a better argument than "well, that's just their opinion" to sway me.
- swah 16y ago
  I'm questioning the fact that these experts (doctors? sociologists?) just scored which drugs they found more dangerous. For starters, effects in the individual and in the community belongs to two completely different areas of expertise.
  - JoachimSchipper 16y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nutt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nutt: "David J. Nutt is a British psychiatrist and neuropsychopharmacologist specialising in the research of drugs which affect the brain and conditions such as addiction, anxiety and sleep." Dr. Les King is a well-respected chemist; I'll let you dig up your own references. Dr. Phillips is specialized in decision procedures and policy-making. Yes, it would make sense to have others look over their conclusions, and yes, at least Nutt and Les King are not sociologists. But both have a long service on various boards on the topic of substance abuse - do you really believe they have no idea what they are talking about, medically or sociologically? Do you really think the Lancet wants to get caught publishing highly controversial rubbish ("link bait")? And all of this is still just a smokescreen - you don't like their conclusions, fine, but then you'll have to point out that they're actually wrong. Calling their authority into question is disingenuous (especially since they have plenty of authority). Their facts may be incorrect, and there is definitely some subjectivity here (how do weigh damage to self in an individualistic welfare state?), but you'll have to offer better arguments than this.
    - jfager 16y ago
      Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. The fact that they are well-credentialed does not excuse the fact that the study in question just flat-out isn't science. It's not reproducible without getting the same group back in a room together, it's based on subjective opinion or subjective interpretation of objective data, and it compares legal substances to illegal substances without offering a principled way to control for the effects of that regulation. Do you really think the Lancet wants to get caught publishing highly controversial rubbish ("link bait")? Um, The Lancet frequently publishes controversial articles. They published (and later retracted) a paper that claimed a link between vaccines and autism, they put out one of the highest death-toll estimates of the Iraq War, and they've called for a complete ban on tobacco products in the UK, to name a few.
      - JoachimSchipper 16y ago
        > Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy Yes, but the comment I replied to was questioning their credentials, which is at equally invalid - more so, in this case, since they actually do have quite impressive credentials. With respect to The Lancet: controversy sells, but you still want to have a credible argument. You are right, though, that this isn't exactly objective and independent of current policy. Then again, it may be hard to get such data...