3 ms·

>on average, experts do spectacularly better than Joe Schmoe. Including science degree holders thinking they understand medical studies while missing the whole

>on average, experts do spectacularly better than Joe Schmoe. Including science degree holders thinking they understand medical studies while missing the whole political and social context of the field. I'm saying that, when the data is unclear and Joe is thorough, I don't even think that's true. Or at least it's not spectacularly better. My point is that for something like Ivermectin where the data was initially null and even now isn't super clear, the word of experts was basically meaningless. Trust them if you don't care enough to look into it, but if you're Joe I'd say just go ahead and believe whatever you understand to be correct until there's a better consensus.

rscho 5y ago
Your Joe is the average HN reader. My Joe is my average patient. I completely agree that the word of experts is meaningless on matters where dust had no time to settle. I however maintain that practitioners have to follow guidelines and experts regardless because I believe in the principle (if not the current application) of evidence-based medicine, and that Joe should not be allowed free access to any drug he wants to prevent frequent self harm.
- deadpannini 5y ago
  I agree, but that is quite separate from the posture of epistemological submission to experts that's being used to censor "misinformation".
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    I don't know about that. I'd rather see all of this stuff disappear from youtube and to deny the conspiracy sphere its oxygen than to let this run its course. The damage is very real. Experts tend to communicate via scientific papers and symposia, not via youtube, that's aimed squarely at the masses only a very small fraction of which has the capacity to interpret what they are hearing, but almost all of them have the capacity to filter that to select the bits that they like or that they feel support their pet desired outcomes.
    - deadpannini 5y ago
      The damage caused by mis- and dis-information is real, but suppressing dissenting voices (even comically mistaken ones and bad actors) destroys institutional credibility, which is far worse in the long run.
    - blindmute 5y ago
      I'd rather allow free speech.
jacquesm 5y ago
The medical profession gets it wrong with some regularity, but this Ivermectin thing fell out of the sky without any support, and was touted as the miracle cure that big pharma was withholding in order to protect their profits. So even if the data is unclear we can safely conclude that it isn't a miracle cure and never was. And Joe Schmoe here isn't talking about some condition that he's been walking around with for a while and has studied extensively, Joe Schmoe here is a guy who believes doing your own research is watching youtube videos by people who have done their own research reading a bunch of papers without understanding any of it. The problem is that that gets in the way of achieving the goal: beating this pandemic, and that isn't going to happen with ivermectin. (Or HCQ for that matter).

rscho 5y ago

Your Joe is the average HN reader. My Joe is my average patient. I completely agree that the word of experts is meaningless on matters where dust had no time to settle. I however maintain that practitioners have to follow guidelines and experts regardless because I believe in the principle (if not the current application) of evidence-based medicine, and that Joe should not be allowed free access to any drug he wants to prevent frequent self harm.

deadpannini 5y ago
I agree, but that is quite separate from the posture of epistemological submission to experts that's being used to censor "misinformation".
- jacquesm 5y ago
  I don't know about that. I'd rather see all of this stuff disappear from youtube and to deny the conspiracy sphere its oxygen than to let this run its course. The damage is very real. Experts tend to communicate via scientific papers and symposia, not via youtube, that's aimed squarely at the masses only a very small fraction of which has the capacity to interpret what they are hearing, but almost all of them have the capacity to filter that to select the bits that they like or that they feel support their pet desired outcomes.
  - deadpannini 5y ago
    The damage caused by mis- and dis-information is real, but suppressing dissenting voices (even comically mistaken ones and bad actors) destroys institutional credibility, which is far worse in the long run.
  - blindmute 5y ago
    I'd rather allow free speech.

jacquesm 5y ago

The medical profession gets it wrong with some regularity, but this Ivermectin thing fell out of the sky without any support, and was touted as the miracle cure that big pharma was withholding in order to protect their profits. So even if the data is unclear we can safely conclude that it isn't a miracle cure and never was. And Joe Schmoe here isn't talking about some condition that he's been walking around with for a while and has studied extensively, Joe Schmoe here is a guy who believes doing your own research is watching youtube videos by people who have done their own research reading a bunch of papers without understanding any of it. The problem is that that gets in the way of achieving the goal: beating this pandemic, and that isn't going to happen with ivermectin. (Or HCQ for that matter).