4 ms·

I find this paragraph in the article to be, ironically, a straw man. > But it’s not “extremely plausible” that there’s a vast conspiracy among medical research

I find this paragraph in the article to be, ironically, a straw man. > But it’s not “extremely plausible” that there’s a vast conspiracy among medical researchers (many of whom stated open to the view that ivermectin has some benefit) and public health officials to perpetrate the most significant fraud in human history Because Alexander’s actual argument is the following. “Sometimes these people even have a specific theory for why elites are covering up ivermectin, like that pharma companies want you to use more expensive patented drugs instead. This theory is extremely plausible.” The latter does seem plausible given the examples Alexander cites of Big Pharma doing unethical things to promote use of more expensive drugs. But I don’t know if these examples are actually legit: if the author was steelmanning Alexander, he might have explored those questions.

jamesrom 4y ago
Exactly this. Gelmann pulls a quote out of context and omits the core of the argument as to _why_ it is extremely plausible. Alexander doesn't just leave that statement hanging, he cites other instances where this exact thing has occurred. Including a first hand account dealing with this in a clinical setting https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/03/11/ketamine-now-by-prescription/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/03/11/ketamine-now-by-prescr... If Gelmann had decided to steelman Alexander here, it would have been a productive conversation! Instead it's a squabble over the definition of "extremely plausible".
mannykannot 4y ago
One way to steelmanning Alexander's argument is to assume that what he is calling extremely plausible is only the general claim "pharma companies want you to use more expensive patented drugs instead [of alternatives]", and not the whole passage. This leaves plenty of room to argue that this does not make the specific claim plausible. I am not so sure the author's response here can be steelmanned. He says "Alexander was 'steelmanning'... but in doing so he was swallowing whole a 'strawman' about pharmaceutical companies and public health officials." It is not clear, from the author's quote, that Alexander accepts the straw man. More generally, steelmanning may sometimes be done via a tacit or explicit "even assuming, for the sake of argument,..."

jamesrom 4y ago

Exactly this. Gelmann pulls a quote out of context and omits the core of the argument as to _why_ it is extremely plausible. Alexander doesn't just leave that statement hanging, he cites other instances where this exact thing has occurred. Including a first hand account dealing with this in a clinical setting https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/03/11/ketamine-now-by-prescription/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/03/11/ketamine-now-by-prescr... If Gelmann had decided to steelman Alexander here, it would have been a productive conversation! Instead it's a squabble over the definition of "extremely plausible".

mannykannot 4y ago

One way to steelmanning Alexander's argument is to assume that what he is calling extremely plausible is only the general claim "pharma companies want you to use more expensive patented drugs instead [of alternatives]", and not the whole passage. This leaves plenty of room to argue that this does not make the specific claim plausible. I am not so sure the author's response here can be steelmanned. He says "Alexander was 'steelmanning'... but in doing so he was swallowing whole a 'strawman' about pharmaceutical companies and public health officials." It is not clear, from the author's quote, that Alexander accepts the straw man. More generally, steelmanning may sometimes be done via a tacit or explicit "even assuming, for the sake of argument,..."