4 ms·

It seems like such a strange nit to pick here over my use of the term miraculous. I don’t know what else you would call the results of the study I linked (supp

by blhack 7y ago

It seems like such a strange nit to pick here over my use of the term miraculous. I don’t know what else you would call the results of the study I linked (supported by the reaction of many national health orgs). Yeah, maybe this isn’t the cure to this disease, and of course we need more testing, but the result as reported are incredibly hopeful. It seems to have hit a nerve with some people that I used the term “miraculous”, but I will continue to defend that term. We are looking at a virus that has disrupted the global order. Here is a study claiming incredible efficacy. That isn’t a miracle in the divine sense, but if definitely reports as being extremely helpful during a dire need.

jshevek 7y ago
You were wrong when you presented alleged evidence/argument that experts must necessarily disagree with the MD/statistician, above.
- blhack 7y ago
  If doctors are using this, and not seeing an effect, why do they continue using it? Doctors are humans, and prone to irrationality of course, but they're also scientists. Maybe my faith in the collective ability of the world medical professionals to evaluate their treatment techniques is misplaced, but I still have faith that these people are acting in accordance with their scientific training. Maybe that's wrong, and I shouldn't be trusting these people. But if I'm not trusting doctors (and especially infectious disease experts who are writing papers about their findings), then who should I trust? I think a lot of this distrust in institutions and doctors is going to get us into a lot of trouble. I wish people would start listening to these orgs.
  - jshevek 7y ago
    Your post does not address my point. That's okay, if you simply wanted to say the things you said. There are things you've said that I agree with, and things which I strongly disagree with. In a conversation, I like to be careful about going down too many side tangents if certain fundamentals are not already mutually understood.
    - blhack 7y ago
      It seems like you disagree with my implication that use of something (in this case, chloroquine to treat covid-19, the use of which seems to be increasing daily) implies its efficacy. Why? I'm modeling the doctors and health officials who are making these decisions as agents which are presumably continuously evaluating their decisions. So basically: A lot of experts are taking this action -> assume the action has a desirable outcome -> believe what the experts are saying (in this case both their words and their actions seem to agree with each other, and point to the idea that chloroquine is an effective treatment of covid-19). I am genuinely at a loss as to why this stance (my stance) is anything other than completely obvious.
      - jshevek 7y ago
        No. Here, as in several places, you make unwarranted assumptions about other's thought processes. Remember that "efficacy" is a matter of degree. I try not to spend too much time and effort on strawmen.
        blhack 7y ago
        I'm trying to understand you here. Is the assumption that doctors are taking actions based on previous experience with those sorts of actions unwarranted in your opinion? Or a strawman? I'm sorry if but I'm having a difficult time figuring out what I have said that you disagreed with.
        jshevek 7y ago
        You seem sincere, and unlike prior comments to be approaching this in good faith. Maybe you even welcome criticism as a means of improving your thought process. I don't mean to be cryptic, and certainly don't mean to be rude, I just try to conserve energy and not get caught up in non-constructive arguments. You don't seem to be taking people's statements at face value, but rather projecting additional meaning onto them, almost as if you conceive of fewer possible positions than there actually are, and pigeonhole us. Consider my prior two statements in this thread which start with "the fact" and "you were". Do you agree that these statements were correct, on their own terms, in their own context, and independent of additional complexities involving degree if efficacy or various arguments for or against use, testing, or hopefulness? Also, do you see that the people who disagree with your framing are not 'picking nits' nor are they having 'struck nerves'? Can you see other reasons why they might respond as they did?

by blhack 7y ago

jshevek 7y ago

You were wrong when you presented alleged evidence/argument that experts must necessarily disagree with the MD/statistician, above.

blhack 7y ago
If doctors are using this, and not seeing an effect, why do they continue using it? Doctors are humans, and prone to irrationality of course, but they're also scientists. Maybe my faith in the collective ability of the world medical professionals to evaluate their treatment techniques is misplaced, but I still have faith that these people are acting in accordance with their scientific training. Maybe that's wrong, and I shouldn't be trusting these people. But if I'm not trusting doctors (and especially infectious disease experts who are writing papers about their findings), then who should I trust? I think a lot of this distrust in institutions and doctors is going to get us into a lot of trouble. I wish people would start listening to these orgs.
- jshevek 7y ago
  Your post does not address my point. That's okay, if you simply wanted to say the things you said. There are things you've said that I agree with, and things which I strongly disagree with. In a conversation, I like to be careful about going down too many side tangents if certain fundamentals are not already mutually understood.
  - blhack 7y ago
    It seems like you disagree with my implication that use of something (in this case, chloroquine to treat covid-19, the use of which seems to be increasing daily) implies its efficacy. Why? I'm modeling the doctors and health officials who are making these decisions as agents which are presumably continuously evaluating their decisions. So basically: A lot of experts are taking this action -> assume the action has a desirable outcome -> believe what the experts are saying (in this case both their words and their actions seem to agree with each other, and point to the idea that chloroquine is an effective treatment of covid-19). I am genuinely at a loss as to why this stance (my stance) is anything other than completely obvious.
    - jshevek 7y ago
      No. Here, as in several places, you make unwarranted assumptions about other's thought processes. Remember that "efficacy" is a matter of degree. I try not to spend too much time and effort on strawmen.
      - blhack 7y ago
        I'm trying to understand you here. Is the assumption that doctors are taking actions based on previous experience with those sorts of actions unwarranted in your opinion? Or a strawman? I'm sorry if but I'm having a difficult time figuring out what I have said that you disagreed with.
        jshevek 7y ago
        You seem sincere, and unlike prior comments to be approaching this in good faith. Maybe you even welcome criticism as a means of improving your thought process. I don't mean to be cryptic, and certainly don't mean to be rude, I just try to conserve energy and not get caught up in non-constructive arguments. You don't seem to be taking people's statements at face value, but rather projecting additional meaning onto them, almost as if you conceive of fewer possible positions than there actually are, and pigeonhole us. Consider my prior two statements in this thread which start with "the fact" and "you were". Do you agree that these statements were correct, on their own terms, in their own context, and independent of additional complexities involving degree if efficacy or various arguments for or against use, testing, or hopefulness? Also, do you see that the people who disagree with your framing are not 'picking nits' nor are they having 'struck nerves'? Can you see other reasons why they might respond as they did?