3 ms·

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

by 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

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?