4 ms·

I don't think there is a lot wrong with doctors, or specialists getting hold of individual or preprint papers. Sometimes they're the best you have when you need

I don't think there is a lot wrong with doctors, or specialists getting hold of individual or preprint papers. Sometimes they're the best you have when you need to make decisions. I think the problems start when you have a layman trying to understand a topic. You can find all kinds of papers and results with contradicting evidence, so you need foundational knowledge to interpret them.

whimsicalism 3y ago
"doctor" is more lay of a title than many think imo
- zeroCalories 3y ago
  Doctors vary but they're still the best at what they do, which is deciding on a treatment given limited information.
  - tremon 3y ago
    In my ideal world, they shouldn't be doing that at all. They should be advising on treatments and performing said treatments, not deciding on them.
    - zeroCalories 3y ago
      My understanding is that in the U.S a patient always has the right to refuse treatment. The only power a Doctor might have is to deny a treatment, but that seems reasonable from a positive/negative rights perspective. But I get it, you and the other poster are trying to seed doubt about vaccines.
      - whimsicalism 3y ago
        > But I get it, you and the other poster are trying to seed doubt about vaccines. yeah no, not at all
      - tremon 3y ago
        you and the other poster are trying to seed doubt about vaccines WTF? How did you get that from what I wrote? Are you under the impression that individual doctors decide on which vaccines to give to which patient?
AmericanChopper 3y ago
I think a bigger problem (especially if you think ordinary people shouldn’t be entitled to their own opinions), is when people advocate for science to have the final say on all matters of public policy. Especially when so many people consider any form of skepticism towards scientific findings to be some sort of heresy.
- zeroCalories 3y ago
  What else should we depend on, vibes? Even the claim "scientific findings aren't reliable" is a claim that can only be confirmed through science. Science isn't an exclusive institution, everyone is welcome to participate. But a preprint + conspiratorial thinking isn't a substitute for good arguments.
  - AmericanChopper 3y ago
    > What else should we depend on, vibes? Well the purpose of public policy is to serve the will and preferences of the people, so I’d suggest we should rely on our democratic processes to have the final say on all matters of public policy. > Even the claim "scientific findings aren't reliable" is a claim that can only be confirmed through science. This is complete nonsense. Anybody can point out the flaws in any claim made by science, or demonstrate a reason for why something might be false. Even a freshman CompSci student with a side interest in journalism. Perhaps scientists will only accept their findings being falsified by appropriately qualified people who follow whatever formal procedures they deem appropriate, but who cares? If I were to read a study that made some wild claims that were barely supported at all by the data gathered from their clearly flawed experiments, then I’m welcome to draw my own opinion that “that study seems like bs to me”, and it’s not necessary for me to have that opinion validated by any scientific process or institution. > Science isn't an exclusive institution, everyone is welcome to participate. This is also nonsense. Public discussions on science are extensively gatekept to only allowing the views of “the experts” and people who agree with “the experts”. A non-expert challenging the claims made by an expert is misinformation, and should be fact-checked and flagged with a disclaimer, or removed from the discussion entirely.

whimsicalism 3y ago

"doctor" is more lay of a title than many think imo

zeroCalories 3y ago
Doctors vary but they're still the best at what they do, which is deciding on a treatment given limited information.
- tremon 3y ago
  In my ideal world, they shouldn't be doing that at all. They should be advising on treatments and performing said treatments, not deciding on them.
  - zeroCalories 3y ago
    My understanding is that in the U.S a patient always has the right to refuse treatment. The only power a Doctor might have is to deny a treatment, but that seems reasonable from a positive/negative rights perspective. But I get it, you and the other poster are trying to seed doubt about vaccines.
    - whimsicalism 3y ago
      > But I get it, you and the other poster are trying to seed doubt about vaccines. yeah no, not at all
    - tremon 3y ago
      you and the other poster are trying to seed doubt about vaccines WTF? How did you get that from what I wrote? Are you under the impression that individual doctors decide on which vaccines to give to which patient?

AmericanChopper 3y ago

I think a bigger problem (especially if you think ordinary people shouldn’t be entitled to their own opinions), is when people advocate for science to have the final say on all matters of public policy. Especially when so many people consider any form of skepticism towards scientific findings to be some sort of heresy.

zeroCalories 3y ago
What else should we depend on, vibes? Even the claim "scientific findings aren't reliable" is a claim that can only be confirmed through science. Science isn't an exclusive institution, everyone is welcome to participate. But a preprint + conspiratorial thinking isn't a substitute for good arguments.
- AmericanChopper 3y ago
  > What else should we depend on, vibes? Well the purpose of public policy is to serve the will and preferences of the people, so I’d suggest we should rely on our democratic processes to have the final say on all matters of public policy. > Even the claim "scientific findings aren't reliable" is a claim that can only be confirmed through science. This is complete nonsense. Anybody can point out the flaws in any claim made by science, or demonstrate a reason for why something might be false. Even a freshman CompSci student with a side interest in journalism. Perhaps scientists will only accept their findings being falsified by appropriately qualified people who follow whatever formal procedures they deem appropriate, but who cares? If I were to read a study that made some wild claims that were barely supported at all by the data gathered from their clearly flawed experiments, then I’m welcome to draw my own opinion that “that study seems like bs to me”, and it’s not necessary for me to have that opinion validated by any scientific process or institution. > Science isn't an exclusive institution, everyone is welcome to participate. This is also nonsense. Public discussions on science are extensively gatekept to only allowing the views of “the experts” and people who agree with “the experts”. A non-expert challenging the claims made by an expert is misinformation, and should be fact-checked and flagged with a disclaimer, or removed from the discussion entirely.