3 ms·

I think making medical claims is quite punishable if one doesn't have a license. This could easily be extended to include journalists and politicians as well as

by 6510 7y ago

I think making medical claims is quite punishable if one doesn't have a license. This could easily be extended to include journalists and politicians as well as other areas of science (if the stakes are high enough) It would work like this: For each field there has to be a committee similar to the ones medical practitioners already have. If the behavior is not up to standards they do an inquiry and if need be the credentials are stripped. Someone with credentials may sign-off on articles written by journalists and must do so for laws made by law makers. Such articles and laws stay active for as long as the credentials are valid. If the person dies a new one has to sign off on it. If that doesn't happen the law is abolished automatically and the archived news article will have to clearly state at the top that such validation is missing as-of [say] march 2043. It may also solicit such review. We can make a convenient api that allows people with credentials to stick our their neck to approve a publication. The list of professionals endorsing the perspective must be made available from the article or law.

cryptonector 7y ago
> I think making medical claims is quite punishable if one doesn't have a license. Well, it's tricky. If you say "I don't believe covid-19 is a serious problem", that can't be punishable as there is a large spectrum of legitimate thinking as to its severity and what trade-offs we should want to make. Such a statement is not remotely like practicing medicine without a license, but some will argue that it is if it could help them shut up the speaker. While saying that "chloroquine phosphate is a good prophylactic for covid-19" to someone who would believe it certainly should be punishable (as attempted murder perhaps! and regardless of whether the speaker is a licensed physician!). > This could easily be extended to include journalists and politicians as well as other areas of science (if the stakes are high enough) Journalists? Eh, maybe, but government officers generally have privileges and immunities -- good luck getting them to let those go. Anyways, the rest of your comment reads like 1984. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes and all that. Regulatory capture and all that. There's no Objectivity. There's no way to set up a mechanism that yields objectively-correct results. All systems will be susceptible to collective delusions and other failures. There's no silver bullet here, and free speech should be part of the mix. Reactionary thinking is fun for the angry, but not good for society.
- antpls 7y ago
  > While saying that "chloroquine phosphate is a good prophylactic for covid-19" to someone who would believe it certainly should be punishable (as attempted murder perhaps! and regardless of whether the speaker is a licensed physician!). I would disagree. As an example in the history, saying "The Earth is a sphere" was once punishable by death. Fake news and pseudo science has always existed, but censorship is not a solution. Only research, education and communication can help, and even then, each generation will always have his own set of questions without answers. I don't agree with the parent' solution either, for the same reasons.
  - cryptonector 7y ago
    Chloroquine phosphate is fishtank cleaner, and -to humans- poison. Granted, if you're just dumb and ignorant and choose to take it yourself, that's no crime. But telling others to take poison, without telling them it's poison, should be a crime. Of course, in the case of chloroquine phosphate, if you look at the packaging, you'll see it's poison.
    - kgwgk 7y ago
      Water will also kill you if you drink too much. But telling people that they need to drink water is not a crime. Chloroquine phosphate is a fish tank cleaner. On the other hand, chloroquine phosphate is a medicine.
  - 6510 7y ago
    Lets take a different perspective. The drawback of paper days where one would publish a final version are over. On paper one could only enhance by publishing a retraction or a follow up. Assuming the author has better things to do others could provide value by endorsement. We have star ratings and thumbs all over the web, it works but the rocket scientist gets as many votes as the 12 year old under an article about rocket science. I've often had the discussion on wikipedia. The funniest one was 4 so called established editors repeatedly overruling the Nobel prize winner in his area of expertise on an issue that according to the guidelines is left up to editors. Initially he argued the text he added was common sense. When trying to add sources there was only cursory mention in top journals (they assumed it was common sense for their reader) everything else was considered not RS. It struck me how easy it would be to use [for example] university profile pages to host a public key. It doesn't even have to be visible. The WP editors argued it impossible but its easy. Then them professors can go around and rate peoples publications the way they always do. As a reader I would much enjoy the endorsements. It's much better than just my own opinion crudely put together without expertise. The journalist probably doesn't know anything either. I wonder, what are we even doing? (me and the journalist) If neither of us can see the false-positives or -negatives nor can do the probability calculations... what is the point of the exchange? I see much greater potential with little extra effort.

by 6510 7y ago

cryptonector 7y ago

> I think making medical claims is quite punishable if one doesn't have a license. Well, it's tricky. If you say "I don't believe covid-19 is a serious problem", that can't be punishable as there is a large spectrum of legitimate thinking as to its severity and what trade-offs we should want to make. Such a statement is not remotely like practicing medicine without a license, but some will argue that it is if it could help them shut up the speaker. While saying that "chloroquine phosphate is a good prophylactic for covid-19" to someone who would believe it certainly should be punishable (as attempted murder perhaps! and regardless of whether the speaker is a licensed physician!). > This could easily be extended to include journalists and politicians as well as other areas of science (if the stakes are high enough) Journalists? Eh, maybe, but government officers generally have privileges and immunities -- good luck getting them to let those go. Anyways, the rest of your comment reads like 1984. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes and all that. Regulatory capture and all that. There's no Objectivity. There's no way to set up a mechanism that yields objectively-correct results. All systems will be susceptible to collective delusions and other failures. There's no silver bullet here, and free speech should be part of the mix. Reactionary thinking is fun for the angry, but not good for society.

antpls 7y ago
> While saying that "chloroquine phosphate is a good prophylactic for covid-19" to someone who would believe it certainly should be punishable (as attempted murder perhaps! and regardless of whether the speaker is a licensed physician!). I would disagree. As an example in the history, saying "The Earth is a sphere" was once punishable by death. Fake news and pseudo science has always existed, but censorship is not a solution. Only research, education and communication can help, and even then, each generation will always have his own set of questions without answers. I don't agree with the parent' solution either, for the same reasons.
- cryptonector 7y ago
  Chloroquine phosphate is fishtank cleaner, and -to humans- poison. Granted, if you're just dumb and ignorant and choose to take it yourself, that's no crime. But telling others to take poison, without telling them it's poison, should be a crime. Of course, in the case of chloroquine phosphate, if you look at the packaging, you'll see it's poison.
  - kgwgk 7y ago
    Water will also kill you if you drink too much. But telling people that they need to drink water is not a crime. Chloroquine phosphate is a fish tank cleaner. On the other hand, chloroquine phosphate is a medicine.
- 6510 7y ago
  Lets take a different perspective. The drawback of paper days where one would publish a final version are over. On paper one could only enhance by publishing a retraction or a follow up. Assuming the author has better things to do others could provide value by endorsement. We have star ratings and thumbs all over the web, it works but the rocket scientist gets as many votes as the 12 year old under an article about rocket science. I've often had the discussion on wikipedia. The funniest one was 4 so called established editors repeatedly overruling the Nobel prize winner in his area of expertise on an issue that according to the guidelines is left up to editors. Initially he argued the text he added was common sense. When trying to add sources there was only cursory mention in top journals (they assumed it was common sense for their reader) everything else was considered not RS. It struck me how easy it would be to use [for example] university profile pages to host a public key. It doesn't even have to be visible. The WP editors argued it impossible but its easy. Then them professors can go around and rate peoples publications the way they always do. As a reader I would much enjoy the endorsements. It's much better than just my own opinion crudely put together without expertise. The journalist probably doesn't know anything either. I wonder, what are we even doing? (me and the journalist) If neither of us can see the false-positives or -negatives nor can do the probability calculations... what is the point of the exchange? I see much greater potential with little extra effort.