Credentials needed for health discussions?

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: AZDuffman

Haven't seen anything on it. "Multiple vaccines" could mean anything. My thought is this happens regular but this is the time you choose to notice and think the world is ending because of it? When you see news like this one should ask themselves, "compared to what?" How many vaccines are being removed vs. how many are there in total? Are they for things we do not need to vax for, like old flu strains or smallpox?

Sounds like business as usual to me.
link to original post

I guess that could be another possibility for societal collapse or extinction- an unintentional iatrogenic genocide.

I'm not looking for any trouble so I'm not going to express it in terms of any current real-world concerns, but suppose there was some universally applied medical intervention, that was believed to be harmless, but there is no substitute for time and in time it proved to be deadly and sterilizing to all those who took it.

This thought came to me when I read that there was a negative correlation between having had chickenpox and developing brain cancer. Given a choice between those two things, I think I'll take my chances with chickenpox! But now they vaccinate for chickenpox. Given that correlation, are you sure you want to do that?

The microbes that are endemic to a species evolved with that species, and there's generally some kind of symbiotic relationship. Like our gut bacteria. We can't live without those for very long. And who knows what those little bugs in our eyelashes do, maybe they keep us from going blind or something? Trying to hack nature (especially evolution) is risky business. We should do this slowly and thoughtfully.
link to original post

If such a medical intervention had the sort of adverse effect you mentioned, medical scientists and public health experts would be all over it.

As for chickenpox versus vaccination, what is the comparison of the incidence of brain cancer in the vaccinated versus unvaccinated compared the risk of death in the vaccinated versus the unvaccinated?
link to original post

Chickenpox was always just a thing you got. Discomfort for about a week then over it. In my day parents had "chickenpox parties" if a kid was known to have it so the others would get it. Because it was better to get it young than as an adult where there could be complications. Risk of death? Pretty close to zero.
link to original post

We had chicken pox parties way back in the day because we didn't have a vaccine, and chicken pox was a disease of the youth. Those youths suffered greatly, often at risk of permanent disfigurement due to the pox and at risk of death. The vaccine changed all that. The vaccine reduced the suffering of today's youths, drastically reduced the risk of permanent disfigurement and reduced deaths by 97%. There is no disease I can think of where it's better to contact the disease versus getting the vaccine.
link to original post

Disfigurement? Maybe you had a few scars, not a big deal. As to death, I cannot recall ever hearing of anyone who got it in childhood dying. You itched like crazy, in a week it was over.
link to original post

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: AZDuffman

Chickenpox was always just a thing you got. Discomfort for about a week then over it. In my day parents had "chickenpox parties" if a kid was known to have it so the others would get it. Because it was better to get it young than as an adult where there could be complications. Risk of death? Pretty close to zero.
link to original post

We had chicken pox parties way back in the day because we didn't have a vaccine, and chicken pox was a disease of the youth. Those youths suffered greatly, often at risk of permanent disfigurement due to the pox and at risk of death. The vaccine changed all that. The vaccine reduced the suffering of today's youths, drastically reduced the risk of permanent disfigurement and reduced deaths by 97%. There is no disease I can think of where it's better to contact the disease versus getting the vaccine.
link to original post

Last week I was riding the bus, and a pretty girl walked onto the bus, and she was wearing a skirt. And as she walked by, I put my monkey paw up under her skirt!

And she said "How dare you touch me like that! That's assault!"

And I told her "Don't worry, it was all for the sake of science. I thought I saw a squirrel run up under your skirt and I was trying to remove it. I could be wrong, but there was a chance I really did see a squirrel. And there is also a chance that squirrel could be rabid, and bite you and cause you to die. But there is no chance my touching you under your skirt could cause your death. Therefore, I performed an act with zero chance of causing your death to correct a condition with a nonzero chance of causing your death. Trust me, I'm a scientist."

And she said "Oh. Well then, thank you for.." wait- that's crazy, she didn't say anything like that and I've never done anything like that!!

It's all about consent. Keeping everything consensual, with no compulsion of any kind, will keep us all getting along and will actually increase support for these public health measures.
link to original post

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Last week I was riding the bus, and a pretty girl walked onto the bus, and she was wearing a skirt. And as she walked by, I put my monkey paw up under her skirt!

And she said "How dare you touch me like that! That's assault!"

And I told her "Don't worry, it was all for the sake of science. I thought I saw a squirrel run up under your skirt and I was trying to remove it. I could be wrong, but there was a chance I really did see a squirrel. And there is also a chance that squirrel could be rabid, and bite you and cause you to die. But there is no chance my touching you under your skirt could cause your death. Therefore, I performed an act with zero chance of causing your death to correct a condition with a nonzero chance of causing your death. Trust me, I'm a scientist."

And she said "Oh. Well then, thank you for.." wait- that's crazy, she didn't say anything like that and I've never done anything like that!!

It's all about consent. Keeping everything consensual, with no compulsion of any kind, will keep us all getting along and will actually increase support for these public health measures.
link to original post

Clearly, you have dizzying intellect.
link to original post

Aw thanks, I get that a lot. I'll try not to make anyone's head spin too fast.

People get very upset about being forced or compelled. If you look up the terms "nonconsensual" and "forcible compulsion" in a law encyclopedia they're usually used in reference to a certain crime that disgusts and angers people to the extreme, and it is a crime against the body. We can generalize that and say that any nonconsensual or forcible thing done to the body of another is going to inspire the same feelings and cause that person to hate you, and being hated has consequences.

With the events we all saw a few years ago, it seemed like the more the one side disliked and distrusted some measure, the more the other side insisted it must be applied to them. Can't fool me, they were getting their jollies doing that! People like power, and as a very smart man once said "The only way to know and prove that you have power, is to make someone else's life hell." You can brighten up someone's day without any power at all, so doing that doesn't satisfy someone who craves power, and there are many such people, and you are as likely to find them already in a position of power as you are to find a drunk already in a bar. And from the opposite side, the more the one were forced and put upon, the more extreme they were willing to be and the more they rejected everything about the other, even when it was counterproductive to do those things.

Forgive me if I do not think . And the individual is always in charge; they're the captain of their own ship, and we respect that they are the only one who is going to have to go down with it. I'm not sure if this is stressed enough in the education of medical professionals- if you screw up, you won't feel a thing, but it is someone else who might be dying horribly as a result, or have lifelong consequences that they will be the only one suffering. That's what makes the principle of consent in medicine such a sacred thing.
link to original post

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: AZDuffman

Haven't seen anything on it. "Multiple vaccines" could mean anything. My thought is this happens regular but this is the time you choose to notice and think the world is ending because of it? When you see news like this one should ask themselves, "compared to what?" How many vaccines are being removed vs. how many are there in total? Are they for things we do not need to vax for, like old flu strains or smallpox?

Sounds like business as usual to me.
link to original post

I guess that could be another possibility for societal collapse or extinction- an unintentional iatrogenic genocide.

I'm not looking for any trouble so I'm not going to express it in terms of any current real-world concerns, but suppose there was some universally applied medical intervention, that was believed to be harmless, but there is no substitute for time and in time it proved to be deadly and sterilizing to all those who took it.

This thought came to me when I read that there was a negative correlation between having had chickenpox and developing brain cancer. Given a choice between those two things, I think I'll take my chances with chickenpox! But now they vaccinate for chickenpox. Given that correlation, are you sure you want to do that?

The microbes that are endemic to a species evolved with that species, and there's generally some kind of symbiotic relationship. Like our gut bacteria. We can't live without those for very long. And who knows what those little bugs in our eyelashes do, maybe they keep us from going blind or something? Trying to hack nature (especially evolution) is risky business. We should do this slowly and thoughtfully.
link to original post

If such a medical intervention had the sort of adverse effect you mentioned, medical scientists and public health experts would be all over it.

As for chickenpox versus vaccination, what is the comparison of the incidence of brain cancer in the vaccinated versus unvaccinated compared the risk of death in the vaccinated versus the unvaccinated?
link to original post

Chickenpox was always just a thing you got. Discomfort for about a week then over it. In my day parents had "chickenpox parties" if a kid was known to have it so the others would get it. Because it was better to get it young than as an adult where there could be complications. Risk of death? Pretty close to zero.
link to original post

We had chicken pox parties way back in the day because we didn't have a vaccine, and chicken pox was a disease of the youth. Those youths suffered greatly, often at risk of permanent disfigurement due to the pox and at risk of death. The vaccine changed all that. The vaccine reduced the suffering of today's youths, drastically reduced the risk of permanent disfigurement and reduced deaths by 97%. There is no disease I can think of where it's better to contact the disease versus getting the vaccine.
link to original post

Disfigurement? Maybe you had a few scars, not a big deal. As to death, I cannot recall ever hearing of anyone who got it in childhood dying. You itched like crazy, in a week it was over.
link to original post

In all seriousness, can you tell us your expert credentials on this topic? Are you a physician, nurse practitioner or physician's assistant? Do you have a degree in pharmacy, nursing or biology? Do you have formal and credentialed education in medical epidemiology or bio-statistics? Are you a virologist or microbiologist? What expertise do you have that make your comments credible?
link to original post

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: AZDuffman

Haven't seen anything on it. "Multiple vaccines" could mean anything. My thought is this happens regular but this is the time you choose to notice and think the world is ending because of it? When you see news like this one should ask themselves, "compared to what?" How many vaccines are being removed vs. how many are there in total? Are they for things we do not need to vax for, like old flu strains or smallpox?

Sounds like business as usual to me.
link to original post

I guess that could be another possibility for societal collapse or extinction- an unintentional iatrogenic genocide.

I'm not looking for any trouble so I'm not going to express it in terms of any current real-world concerns, but suppose there was some universally applied medical intervention, that was believed to be harmless, but there is no substitute for time and in time it proved to be deadly and sterilizing to all those who took it.

This thought came to me when I read that there was a negative correlation between having had chickenpox and developing brain cancer. Given a choice between those two things, I think I'll take my chances with chickenpox! But now they vaccinate for chickenpox. Given that correlation, are you sure you want to do that?

The microbes that are endemic to a species evolved with that species, and there's generally some kind of symbiotic relationship. Like our gut bacteria. We can't live without those for very long. And who knows what those little bugs in our eyelashes do, maybe they keep us from going blind or something? Trying to hack nature (especially evolution) is risky business. We should do this slowly and thoughtfully.
link to original post

If such a medical intervention had the sort of adverse effect you mentioned, medical scientists and public health experts would be all over it.

As for chickenpox versus vaccination, what is the comparison of the incidence of brain cancer in the vaccinated versus unvaccinated compared the risk of death in the vaccinated versus the unvaccinated?
link to original post

Chickenpox was always just a thing you got. Discomfort for about a week then over it. In my day parents had "chickenpox parties" if a kid was known to have it so the others would get it. Because it was better to get it young than as an adult where there could be complications. Risk of death? Pretty close to zero.
link to original post

We had chicken pox parties way back in the day because we didn't have a vaccine, and chicken pox was a disease of the youth. Those youths suffered greatly, often at risk of permanent disfigurement due to the pox and at risk of death. The vaccine changed all that. The vaccine reduced the suffering of today's youths, drastically reduced the risk of permanent disfigurement and reduced deaths by 97%. There is no disease I can think of where it's better to contact the disease versus getting the vaccine.
link to original post

Disfigurement? Maybe you had a few scars, not a big deal. As to death, I cannot recall ever hearing of anyone who got it in childhood dying. You itched like crazy, in a week it was over.
link to original post

In all seriousness, can you tell us your expert credentials on this topic? Are you a physician, nurse practitioner or physician's assistant? Do you have a degree in pharmacy, nursing or biology? Do you have formal and credentialed education in medical epidemiology or bio-statistics? Are you a virologist or microbiologist? What expertise do you have that make your comments credible?
link to original post

You do not need a degree to remember having chickenpox as a kid and you do not need a degree to remember what you saw in life. You just need to think for yourself.
link to original post

Quote: GenoDRPh

It's a good thing, then, that nonconsensuality, anger, hatred, and vituperation are not elements of public health policy! Information is delivered gently, with alternative *scientifically valid and reliable* viewpoints sought after and valued.
link to original post

Quote: GenoDRPh

[snip]

So does that mean you have absolutely no scientific or medical credentials to speak intelligently on the subject?
link to original post

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: GenoDRPh

[snip]

So does that mean you have absolutely no scientific or medical credentials to speak intelligently on the subject?
link to original post

In my opinion, most of our regular WOV forum members are highly intelligent, even though we all may disagree because we have had different life experiences. I have degrees in physics and nuclear engineering and was a well-known research scientist in my fields but I'm also smart enough to understand that wisdom and insight are not highly correlated with particular college degrees or credentials. I've known some terribly unimpressive PhDs, lawyers and doctors. On the other hand, no US president has ever had "scientific or medical credentials" but many were able to "speak intelligently" about many subjects.

You may certainly disagree with other forum members but when you imply that they lack "credentials to speak intelligently" you are inching up to the point of insulting a person. Please be aware that you should refrain from doing that.
link to original post

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: AZDuffman

Haven't seen anything on it. "Multiple vaccines" could mean anything. My thought is this happens regular but this is the time you choose to notice and think the world is ending because of it? When you see news like this one should ask themselves, "compared to what?" How many vaccines are being removed vs. how many are there in total? Are they for things we do not need to vax for, like old flu strains or smallpox?

Sounds like business as usual to me.
link to original post

I guess that could be another possibility for societal collapse or extinction- an unintentional iatrogenic genocide.

I'm not looking for any trouble so I'm not going to express it in terms of any current real-world concerns, but suppose there was some universally applied medical intervention, that was believed to be harmless, but there is no substitute for time and in time it proved to be deadly and sterilizing to all those who took it.

This thought came to me when I read that there was a negative correlation between having had chickenpox and developing brain cancer. Given a choice between those two things, I think I'll take my chances with chickenpox! But now they vaccinate for chickenpox. Given that correlation, are you sure you want to do that?

The microbes that are endemic to a species evolved with that species, and there's generally some kind of symbiotic relationship. Like our gut bacteria. We can't live without those for very long. And who knows what those little bugs in our eyelashes do, maybe they keep us from going blind or something? Trying to hack nature (especially evolution) is risky business. We should do this slowly and thoughtfully.
link to original post

If such a medical intervention had the sort of adverse effect you mentioned, medical scientists and public health experts would be all over it.

As for chickenpox versus vaccination, what is the comparison of the incidence of brain cancer in the vaccinated versus unvaccinated compared the risk of death in the vaccinated versus the unvaccinated?
link to original post

Chickenpox was always just a thing you got. Discomfort for about a week then over it. In my day parents had "chickenpox parties" if a kid was known to have it so the others would get it. Because it was better to get it young than as an adult where there could be complications. Risk of death? Pretty close to zero.
link to original post

We had chicken pox parties way back in the day because we didn't have a vaccine, and chicken pox was a disease of the youth. Those youths suffered greatly, often at risk of permanent disfigurement due to the pox and at risk of death. The vaccine changed all that. The vaccine reduced the suffering of today's youths, drastically reduced the risk of permanent disfigurement and reduced deaths by 97%. There is no disease I can think of where it's better to contact the disease versus getting the vaccine.
link to original post

Disfigurement? Maybe you had a few scars, not a big deal. As to death, I cannot recall ever hearing of anyone who got it in childhood dying. You itched like crazy, in a week it was over.
link to original post

In all seriousness, can you tell us your expert credentials on this topic? Are you a physician, nurse practitioner or physician's assistant? Do you have a degree in pharmacy, nursing or biology? Do you have formal and credentialed education in medical epidemiology or bio-statistics? Are you a virologist or microbiologist? What expertise do you have that make your comments credible?
link to original post

You do not need a degree to remember having chickenpox as a kid and you do not need a degree to remember what you saw in life. You just need to think for yourself.
link to original post

So does that mean you have absolutely no scientific or medical credentials to speak intelligently on the subject?
link to original post

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: AZDuffman

Haven't seen anything on it. "Multiple vaccines" could mean anything. My thought is this happens regular but this is the time you choose to notice and think the world is ending because of it? When you see news like this one should ask themselves, "compared to what?" How many vaccines are being removed vs. how many are there in total? Are they for things we do not need to vax for, like old flu strains or smallpox?

Sounds like business as usual to me.
link to original post

I guess that could be another possibility for societal collapse or extinction- an unintentional iatrogenic genocide.

I'm not looking for any trouble so I'm not going to express it in terms of any current real-world concerns, but suppose there was some universally applied medical intervention, that was believed to be harmless, but there is no substitute for time and in time it proved to be deadly and sterilizing to all those who took it.

This thought came to me when I read that there was a negative correlation between having had chickenpox and developing brain cancer. Given a choice between those two things, I think I'll take my chances with chickenpox! But now they vaccinate for chickenpox. Given that correlation, are you sure you want to do that?

The microbes that are endemic to a species evolved with that species, and there's generally some kind of symbiotic relationship. Like our gut bacteria. We can't live without those for very long. And who knows what those little bugs in our eyelashes do, maybe they keep us from going blind or something? Trying to hack nature (especially evolution) is risky business. We should do this slowly and thoughtfully.
link to original post

If such a medical intervention had the sort of adverse effect you mentioned, medical scientists and public health experts would be all over it.

As for chickenpox versus vaccination, what is the comparison of the incidence of brain cancer in the vaccinated versus unvaccinated compared the risk of death in the vaccinated versus the unvaccinated?
link to original post

Chickenpox was always just a thing you got. Discomfort for about a week then over it. In my day parents had "chickenpox parties" if a kid was known to have it so the others would get it. Because it was better to get it young than as an adult where there could be complications. Risk of death? Pretty close to zero.
link to original post

We had chicken pox parties way back in the day because we didn't have a vaccine, and chicken pox was a disease of the youth. Those youths suffered greatly, often at risk of permanent disfigurement due to the pox and at risk of death. The vaccine changed all that. The vaccine reduced the suffering of today's youths, drastically reduced the risk of permanent disfigurement and reduced deaths by 97%. There is no disease I can think of where it's better to contact the disease versus getting the vaccine.
link to original post

Disfigurement? Maybe you had a few scars, not a big deal. As to death, I cannot recall ever hearing of anyone who got it in childhood dying. You itched like crazy, in a week it was over.
link to original post

In all seriousness, can you tell us your expert credentials on this topic? Are you a physician, nurse practitioner or physician's assistant? Do you have a degree in pharmacy, nursing or biology? Do you have formal and credentialed education in medical epidemiology or bio-statistics? Are you a virologist or microbiologist? What expertise do you have that make your comments credible?
link to original post

You do not need a degree to remember having chickenpox as a kid and you do not need a degree to remember what you saw in life. You just need to think for yourself.
link to original post

So does that mean you have absolutely no scientific or medical credentials to speak intelligently on the subject?
link to original post

This is an Internet forum not a board examination. I notice you do not try to refute my statements instead you throw out a red herring implying if a person does not have a degree they cannot speak on a subject.

You cannot refute that parents used to have chickenpox parties to make sure their kids caught it young. Every boomer and Xer on here will agree they remember it at least heard of the practice. Why would a person need a degree to be cola in that?

Ditto on long term effects. Ask people who had chickenpox as a kid if they have any scars or such. They probably don’t. I had some for like maybe a year but they were minor and healed. Most people who had it will likely say the same. Why would anybody need a degree to explain that.

A post said 150 kids per year used to sue from it. You do not need a math degree to know that is three per state per year on average. Or just three per week. Both low numbers.

The problem you seem to have here is with people who do not just believe what they are told and question things. We had the same issue here with masks during the virus scare. Guess what? Those who questioned the masks have been proven right. Proving thinking for yourself is better than blindly following.

So if you want to refute a statement by making a case against it feel free. That is what forums like this are for. But saying a statement cannot be right because someone has no degree or certification? If that is your standard then this kind of discussion might not be for you.
link to original post

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: AZDuffman

Haven't seen anything on it. "Multiple vaccines" could mean anything. My thought is this happens regular but this is the time you choose to notice and think the world is ending because of it? When you see news like this one should ask themselves, "compared to what?" How many vaccines are being removed vs. how many are there in total? Are they for things we do not need to vax for, like old flu strains or smallpox?

Sounds like business as usual to me.
link to original post

I guess that could be another possibility for societal collapse or extinction- an unintentional iatrogenic genocide.

I'm not looking for any trouble so I'm not going to express it in terms of any current real-world concerns, but suppose there was some universally applied medical intervention, that was believed to be harmless, but there is no substitute for time and in time it proved to be deadly and sterilizing to all those who took it.

This thought came to me when I read that there was a negative correlation between having had chickenpox and developing brain cancer. Given a choice between those two things, I think I'll take my chances with chickenpox! But now they vaccinate for chickenpox. Given that correlation, are you sure you want to do that?

The microbes that are endemic to a species evolved with that species, and there's generally some kind of symbiotic relationship. Like our gut bacteria. We can't live without those for very long. And who knows what those little bugs in our eyelashes do, maybe they keep us from going blind or something? Trying to hack nature (especially evolution) is risky business. We should do this slowly and thoughtfully.
link to original post

If such a medical intervention had the sort of adverse effect you mentioned, medical scientists and public health experts would be all over it.

As for chickenpox versus vaccination, what is the comparison of the incidence of brain cancer in the vaccinated versus unvaccinated compared the risk of death in the vaccinated versus the unvaccinated?
link to original post

Chickenpox was always just a thing you got. Discomfort for about a week then over it. In my day parents had "chickenpox parties" if a kid was known to have it so the others would get it. Because it was better to get it young than as an adult where there could be complications. Risk of death? Pretty close to zero.
link to original post

We had chicken pox parties way back in the day because we didn't have a vaccine, and chicken pox was a disease of the youth. Those youths suffered greatly, often at risk of permanent disfigurement due to the pox and at risk of death. The vaccine changed all that. The vaccine reduced the suffering of today's youths, drastically reduced the risk of permanent disfigurement and reduced deaths by 97%. There is no disease I can think of where it's better to contact the disease versus getting the vaccine.
link to original post

Disfigurement? Maybe you had a few scars, not a big deal. As to death, I cannot recall ever hearing of anyone who got it in childhood dying. You itched like crazy, in a week it was over.
link to original post

In all seriousness, can you tell us your expert credentials on this topic? Are you a physician, nurse practitioner or physician's assistant? Do you have a degree in pharmacy, nursing or biology? Do you have formal and credentialed education in medical epidemiology or bio-statistics? Are you a virologist or microbiologist? What expertise do you have that make your comments credible?
link to original post

You do not need a degree to remember having chickenpox as a kid and you do not need a degree to remember what you saw in life. You just need to think for yourself.
link to original post

So does that mean you have absolutely no scientific or medical credentials to speak intelligently on the subject?
link to original post

This is an Internet forum not a board examination. I notice you do not try to refute my statements instead you throw out a red herring implying if a person does not have a degree they cannot speak on a subject.

You cannot refute that parents used to have chickenpox parties to make sure their kids caught it young. Every boomer and Xer on here will agree they remember it at least heard of the practice. Why would a person need a degree to be cola in that?

Ditto on long term effects. Ask people who had chickenpox as a kid if they have any scars or such. They probably don’t. I had some for like maybe a year but they were minor and healed. Most people who had it will likely say the same. Why would anybody need a degree to explain that.

A post said 150 kids per year used to sue from it. You do not need a math degree to know that is three per state per year on average. Or just three per week. Both low numbers.

The problem you seem to have here is with people who do not just believe what they are told and question things. We had the same issue here with masks during the virus scare. Guess what? Those who questioned the masks have been proven right. Proving thinking for yourself is better than blindly following.

So if you want to refute a statement by making a case against it feel free. That is what forums like this are for. But saying a statement cannot be right because someone has no degree or certification? If that is your standard then this kind of discussion might not be for you.
link to original post

Yes, if you have no credentials, your statements must be subject to great scrutiny.

You are not a doctor. You are not a medical practitioner. You are not a scientist. You are not a pharmacist or nurse or epidemiologist. Your statements about chicken pox are about as valid and reliable as if you said the Big Six is the best bet on the craps table, or Keno is the best bet in the entire casino. Your ignorance is not equal to actual facts. And if that earns me a suspension, bring it on.
link to original post

Quote: gordonm888

In my opinion, most of our regular WOV forum members are highly intelligent, even though we all may disagree because we have had different life experiences. I have degrees in physics and nuclear engineering and was a well-known research scientist in my fields
link to original post

Quote: GenoDRPh

Yes, if you have no credentials, your statements must be subject to great scrutiny.

You are not a doctor. You are not a medical practitioner. You are not a scientist. You are not a pharmacist or nurse or epidemiologist. Your statements about chicken pox are about as valid and reliable as if you said the Big Six is the best bet on the craps table, or Keno is the best bet in the entire casino. Your ignorance is not equal to actual facts. And if that earns me a suspension, bring it on.
link to original post

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: GenoDRPh

Yes, if you have no credentials, your statements must be subject to great scrutiny.

You are not a doctor. You are not a medical practitioner. You are not a scientist. You are not a pharmacist or nurse or epidemiologist. Your statements about chicken pox are about as valid and reliable as if you said the Big Six is the best bet on the craps table, or Keno is the best bet in the entire casino. Your ignorance is not equal to actual facts. And if that earns me a suspension, bring it on.
link to original post

Have you forgotten where you are? Let me help...

You are on an internet forum, where, for reasons you fully understand, most of us keep our online identities separate from our real-world identities and activities.

Therefore, you might be a credentialed medical professional. You might be a Nobel laureate in medicine! Or you might be a troll pretending, for craic and satisfaction. And that's all fine, nobody's going to investigate or hold any of that against you. But the fact that you will never be asked to prove your credentials also means that you cannot use your credentials to make a point.

And also, some of the people you are speaking to along the lines of "You are not a doctor!" may actually be, and are sandbagging and giggling for their own entertainment.

On fora like these, people are judged by what they present on the forum. Yeah, in real life I have a bunch of stuff too, patents, professional awards, a very weird CV. But I can't use any of that here. All I have to present and be judged by are good ideas and good words. Now we have some guys like the Wizard and like the game designers who choose to be public and we can go to their websites and blogs and see their real-world work product and know they are to be taken seriously by that. But the rest of us, we just have rhetoric, our words have to defend themselves and make sense to people just as they appear on the screen, with nothing else about us backing them up.
link to original post

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: GenoDRPh

Yes, if you have no credentials, your statements must be subject to great scrutiny.

You are not a doctor. You are not a medical practitioner. You are not a scientist. You are not a pharmacist or nurse or epidemiologist. Your statements about chicken pox are about as valid and reliable as if you said the Big Six is the best bet on the craps table, or Keno is the best bet in the entire casino. Your ignorance is not equal to actual facts. And if that earns me a suspension, bring it on.
link to original post

Have you forgotten where you are? Let me help...

You are on an internet forum, where, for reasons you fully understand, most of us keep our online identities separate from our real-world identities and activities.

Therefore, you might be a credentialed medical professional. You might be a Nobel laureate in medicine! Or you might be a troll pretending, for craic and satisfaction. And that's all fine, nobody's going to investigate or hold any of that against you. But the fact that you will never be asked to prove your credentials also means that you cannot use your credentials to make a point.

And also, some of the people you are speaking to along the lines of "You are not a doctor!" may actually be, and are sandbagging and giggling for their own entertainment.

On fora like these, people are judged by what they present on the forum. Yeah, in real life I have a bunch of stuff too, patents, professional awards, a very weird CV. But I can't use any of that here. All I have to present and be judged by are good ideas and good words. Now we have some guys like the Wizard and like the game designers who choose to be public and we can go to their websites and blogs and see their real-world work product and know they are to be taken seriously by that. But the rest of us, we just have rhetoric, our words have to defend themselves and make sense to people just as they appear on the screen, with nothing else about us backing them up.
link to original post

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: GenoDRPh

Yes, if you have no credentials, your statements must be subject to great scrutiny.

You are not a doctor. You are not a medical practitioner. You are not a scientist. You are not a pharmacist or nurse or epidemiologist. Your statements about chicken pox are about as valid and reliable as if you said the Big Six is the best bet on the craps table, or Keno is the best bet in the entire casino. Your ignorance is not equal to actual facts. And if that earns me a suspension, bring it on.
link to original post

Have you forgotten where you are? Let me help...

You are on an internet forum, where, for reasons you fully understand, most of us keep our online identities separate from our real-world identities and activities.

Therefore, you might be a credentialed medical professional. You might be a Nobel laureate in medicine! Or you might be a troll pretending, for craic and satisfaction. And that's all fine, nobody's going to investigate or hold any of that against you. But the fact that you will never be asked to prove your credentials also means that you cannot use your credentials to make a point.

And also, some of the people you are speaking to along the lines of "You are not a doctor!" may actually be, and are sandbagging and giggling for their own entertainment.

On fora like these, people are judged by what they present on the forum. Yeah, in real life I have a bunch of stuff too, patents, professional awards, a very weird CV. But I can't use any of that here. All I have to present and be judged by are good ideas and good words. Now we have some guys like the Wizard and like the game designers who choose to be public and we can go to their websites and blogs and see their real-world work product and know they are to be taken seriously by that. But the rest of us, we just have rhetoric, our words have to defend themselves and make sense to people just as they appear on the screen, with nothing else about us backing them up.
link to original post

I disagree. If someone makes a claim, I like to see evidence that backs them up, as well as their credibility in making that claim.

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: GenoDRPh

Yes, if you have no credentials, your statements must be subject to great scrutiny.

You are not a doctor. You are not a medical practitioner. You are not a scientist. You are not a pharmacist or nurse or epidemiologist. Your statements about chicken pox are about as valid and reliable as if you said the Big Six is the best bet on the craps table, or Keno is the best bet in the entire casino. Your ignorance is not equal to actual facts. And if that earns me a suspension, bring it on.
link to original post

Have you forgotten where you are? Let me help...

You are on an internet forum, where, for reasons you fully understand, most of us keep our online identities separate from our real-world identities and activities.

Therefore, you might be a credentialed medical professional. You might be a Nobel laureate in medicine! Or you might be a troll pretending, for craic and satisfaction. And that's all fine, nobody's going to investigate or hold any of that against you. But the fact that you will never be asked to prove your credentials also means that you cannot use your credentials to make a point.

And also, some of the people you are speaking to along the lines of "You are not a doctor!" may actually be, and are sandbagging and giggling for their own entertainment.

On fora like these, people are judged by what they present on the forum. Yeah, in real life I have a bunch of stuff too, patents, professional awards, a very weird CV. But I can't use any of that here. All I have to present and be judged by are good ideas and good words. Now we have some guys like the Wizard and like the game designers who choose to be public and we can go to their websites and blogs and see their real-world work product and know they are to be taken seriously by that. But the rest of us, we just have rhetoric, our words have to defend themselves and make sense to people just as they appear on the screen, with nothing else about us backing them up.
link to original post

I disagree. If someone makes a claim, I like to see evidence that backs them up, as well as their credibility in making that claim. If they wish to hid behind anonymity, that is their choice. That means that we will judge them based on their public facing statements. And if they wish to hid their credentials, education and expertise, then it is reasonable to assume they have none. And is someone wishes to sandbag, that's their problem.
link to original post

Quote: KevinAA

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: GenoDRPh

Yes, if you have no credentials, your statements must be subject to great scrutiny.

You are not a doctor. You are not a medical practitioner. You are not a scientist. You are not a pharmacist or nurse or epidemiologist. Your statements about chicken pox are about as valid and reliable as if you said the Big Six is the best bet on the craps table, or Keno is the best bet in the entire casino. Your ignorance is not equal to actual facts. And if that earns me a suspension, bring it on.
link to original post

Have you forgotten where you are? Let me help...

You are on an internet forum, where, for reasons you fully understand, most of us keep our online identities separate from our real-world identities and activities.

Therefore, you might be a credentialed medical professional. You might be a Nobel laureate in medicine! Or you might be a troll pretending, for craic and satisfaction. And that's all fine, nobody's going to investigate or hold any of that against you. But the fact that you will never be asked to prove your credentials also means that you cannot use your credentials to make a point.

And also, some of the people you are speaking to along the lines of "You are not a doctor!" may actually be, and are sandbagging and giggling for their own entertainment.

On fora like these, people are judged by what they present on the forum. Yeah, in real life I have a bunch of stuff too, patents, professional awards, a very weird CV. But I can't use any of that here. All I have to present and be judged by are good ideas and good words. Now we have some guys like the Wizard and like the game designers who choose to be public and we can go to their websites and blogs and see their real-world work product and know they are to be taken seriously by that. But the rest of us, we just have rhetoric, our words have to defend themselves and make sense to people just as they appear on the screen, with nothing else about us backing them up.
link to original post

I disagree. If someone makes a claim, I like to see evidence that backs them up, as well as their credibility in making that claim. If they wish to hid behind anonymity, that is their choice. That means that we will judge them based on their public facing statements. And if they wish to hid their credentials, education and expertise, then it is reasonable to assume they have none. And is someone wishes to sandbag, that's their problem.
link to original post

This isn't a courtroom. Prepare to be disappointed that your unreasonable standards will not be met.
link to original post

Quote: GenoDRPh

It isn't unreasonable to expect someone, who makes a statement of fact, to be able to back it up with evidence.
link to original post

Quote: billryan

Just because someone doesn't have a fancy degree or bother studying a subject, why would their opinions be any less valid than the so-called experts?
If a homophobic racist uses ChatGPT to spout utter nonsense, does it matter if they have a degree?
link to original post

Quote: GenoDRPh

I disagree. If someone makes a claim, I like to see evidence that backs them up, as well as their credibility in making that claim. If they wish to hid behind anonymity, that is their choice. That means that we will judge them based on their public facing statements. And if they wish to hid their credentials, education and expertise, then it is reasonable to assume they have none. And is someone wishes to sandbag, that's their problem.
link to original post

Quote: DRich

I did medical research for three years so obviously I am qualified to answer all medical questions.
link to original post

Quote: DRich

I did medical research for three years so obviously I am qualified to answer all medical questions.
link to original post

Quote: KevinAA

Quote: GenoDRPh

It isn't unreasonable to expect someone, who makes a statement of fact, to be able to back it up with evidence.
link to original post

You demanded credentials in lieu of responding to the content.
link to original post

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: KevinAA

Quote: GenoDRPh

It isn't unreasonable to expect someone, who makes a statement of fact, to be able to back it up with evidence.
link to original post

You demanded credentials in lieu of responding to the content.
link to original post

Yes. The credibility of the content comes, in part, from the credibility of the speaker.

If I, a person with no true advanced education in mathematics or statistics, other than was required for my courses of study, said the best bet in the entire casino was to play Keno, and the best bet on the craps table was the Big red, you would (a) ask to see my math and (b) show me yours to prove I am wrong. That's exactly what I ask of anyone telling me anything that the speaker think is an objective truth. And asking their education is part of that. Disagree? Fine.Let me know when you let someone operate on you who isn't a doctor. Let me know when you let someone who isn't an architect design your next building. Let me know when you let someone who isn't an engineer design your town's next roadway project.
link to original post

Quote: KevinAA

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: KevinAA

Quote: GenoDRPh

It isn't unreasonable to expect someone, who makes a statement of fact, to be able to back it up with evidence.
link to original post

You demanded credentials in lieu of responding to the content.
link to original post

Yes. The credibility of the content comes, in part, from the credibility of the speaker.

If I, a person with no true advanced education in mathematics or statistics, other than was required for my courses of study, said the best bet in the entire casino was to play Keno, and the best bet on the craps table was the Big red, you would (a) ask to see my math and (b) show me yours to prove I am wrong. That's exactly what I ask of anyone telling me anything that the speaker think is an objective truth. And asking their education is part of that. Disagree? Fine.Let me know when you let someone operate on you who isn't a doctor. Let me know when you let someone who isn't an architect design your next building. Let me know when you let someone who isn't an engineer design your town's next roadway project.
link to original post

Besides not being in a courtroom, we are also not getting operated on or building bridges. It's an internet discussion forum. The only thing we do here is share and debate content.

Dismissing one's opinion outright with that arrogant "do you have medical training" makes it impossible to discuss anything with you. If it makes you feel better to shit on us, fine, I don't care. It's an internet discussion forum. It's for casual reading, not to be taken so seriously. Geez
link to original post

Quote: rxwine

Facts are facts

But where the rubber meets the road...

Do you want someone with an opinion that he can do major surgery on you?
Do you want someone with an opinion he knows how to fly your plane.
Do you want your ship pilot with an opinion he can take you safely across the ocean.

I could probably learn enough about Dentistry to sound informed enough to laymen, but you don't want me working on your teeth. (I start by pulling all of them)

Even still I don't discount experience alone. But you need something else (REFERENCEs!!!) i'm not taking your word or your smooth talking.

edit ; probably should be "just an opinion" for each one. Obviously a good surgeon has the opinion he can do major surgery.
link to original post

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: rxwine

Facts are facts

But where the rubber meets the road...

Do you want someone with an opinion that he can do major surgery on you?
Do you want someone with an opinion he knows how to fly your plane.
Do you want your ship pilot with an opinion he can take you safely across the ocean.

I could probably learn enough about Dentistry to sound informed enough to laymen, but you don't want me working on your teeth. (I start by pulling all of them)

Even still I don't discount experience alone. But you need something else (REFERENCEs!!!) i'm not taking your word or your smooth talking.

edit ; probably should be "just an opinion" for each one. Obviously a good surgeon has the opinion he can do major surgery.
link to original post

Opinion is one thing. Learned opinion is something altogether. Expert opinion is a higher bar still.
link to original post

Quote: billryan

Quote: DRich

I did medical research for three years so obviously I am qualified to answer all medical questions.
link to original post

Kool. I have this freckle-shaped thing on my back. What is it and can my neighbor safely remove it with a blow torch?
link to original post

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: rxwine

Facts are facts

But where the rubber meets the road...

Do you want someone with an opinion that he can do major surgery on you?
Do you want someone with an opinion he knows how to fly your plane.
Do you want your ship pilot with an opinion he can take you safely across the ocean.

I could probably learn enough about Dentistry to sound informed enough to laymen, but you don't want me working on your teeth. (I start by pulling all of them)

Even still I don't discount experience alone. But you need something else (REFERENCEs!!!) i'm not taking your word or your smooth talking.

edit ; probably should be "just an opinion" for each one. Obviously a good surgeon has the opinion he can do major surgery.
link to original post

Opinion is one thing. Learned opinion is something altogether. Expert opinion is a higher bar still.
link to original post

Know much about automatic transmissions? The guy at the transmission shop sure does. He is absolutely an expert.

So you take your car to the transmission shop, he says there's something wrong with your transmission and tells you what repair he should do and how much it is going to cost. Do you just do whatever he tells you to do and pay whatever he tells you to pay without question, or do you feel as if it is your right to challenge his claims?

What? That's different? How?
link to original post

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: rxwine

Facts are facts

But where the rubber meets the road...

Do you want someone with an opinion that he can do major surgery on you?
Do you want someone with an opinion he knows how to fly your plane.
Do you want your ship pilot with an opinion he can take you safely across the ocean.

I could probably learn enough about Dentistry to sound informed enough to laymen, but you don't want me working on your teeth. (I start by pulling all of them)

Even still I don't discount experience alone. But you need something else (REFERENCEs!!!) i'm not taking your word or your smooth talking.

edit ; probably should be "just an opinion" for each one. Obviously a good surgeon has the opinion he can do major surgery.
link to original post

Opinion is one thing. Learned opinion is something altogether. Expert opinion is a higher bar still.
link to original post

Know much about automatic transmissions? The guy at the transmission shop sure does. He is absolutely an expert.

So you take your car to the transmission shop, he says there's something wrong with your transmission and tells you what repair he should do and how much it is going to cost. Do you just do whatever he tells you to do and pay whatever he tells you to pay without question, or do you feel as if it is your right to challenge his claims?

What? That's different? How?
link to original post

I know nothing about automatic transmissions. I bring my car to the shop and he gives me a diagnosis and a price to fix. I might bring it to another shop for a second opinion. Then I might bring it to a third. As a consumer, I have that right.

I know about changing oil and flushing radiator coolant and replacing engine and cabin air filters and changing a dead battery and doing spark plugs. If I want that service done, I'll ask around and get prices and what scope of work I can get for that cost. I also know about brake jobs, mounting tires and draining brake fluid. But I'd rather pierce my eardrums with an ice pick than do any of those jobs. In that case, I will again shop around for a price I am willing to pay for work I want done.

For my transmission, I am not an educated consumer and am at the whims of the merchant. In the other scenarios I am a more educated consumer, and am less at the whims of the merchant. In all cases I expect the merchant to be an expert at their craft.

I don't know what you're getting at, in all honesty.
link to original post

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: rxwine

Facts are facts

But where the rubber meets the road...

Do you want someone with an opinion that he can do major surgery on you?
Do you want someone with an opinion he knows how to fly your plane.
Do you want your ship pilot with an opinion he can take you safely across the ocean.

I could probably learn enough about Dentistry to sound informed enough to laymen, but you don't want me working on your teeth. (I start by pulling all of them)

Even still I don't discount experience alone. But you need something else (REFERENCEs!!!) i'm not taking your word or your smooth talking.

edit ; probably should be "just an opinion" for each one. Obviously a good surgeon has the opinion he can do major surgery.
link to original post

Opinion is one thing. Learned opinion is something altogether. Expert opinion is a higher bar still.
link to original post

Know much about automatic transmissions? The guy at the transmission shop sure does. He is absolutely an expert.

So you take your car to the transmission shop, he says there's something wrong with your transmission and tells you what repair he should do and how much it is going to cost. Do you just do whatever he tells you to do and pay whatever he tells you to pay without question, or do you feel as if it is your right to challenge his claims?

What? That's different? How?
link to original post

I know nothing about automatic transmissions. I bring my car to the shop and he gives me a diagnosis and a price to fix. I might bring it to another shop for a second opinion. Then I might bring it to a third. As a consumer, I have that right.

I know about changing oil and flushing radiator coolant and replacing engine and cabin air filters and changing a dead battery and doing spark plugs. If I want that service done, I'll ask around and get prices and what scope of work I can get for that cost. I also know about brake jobs, mounting tires and draining brake fluid. But I'd rather pierce my eardrums with an ice pick than do any of those jobs. In that case, I will again shop around for a price I am willing to pay for work I want done.

For my transmission, I am not an educated consumer and am at the whims of the merchant. In the other scenarios I am a more educated consumer, and am less at the whims of the merchant. In all cases I expect the merchant to be an expert at their craft.

I don't know what you're getting at, in all honesty.
link to original post

Yes, I also expect the merchant to be the expert. But... that does not necessarily mean he is using his expertise in an ethical way. The transmission guy who is a liar and a thief and tries to scam everybody who walks through his door is indeed an expert on transmissions and their repair. It's not whether or not he's an expert that's in question, it's what all else he is.

Likewise with doctors. A doctor who does malpractice, battery on a patient, on drugs, billing fraud, kickbacks, financially motivated unnecessary procedures, the whole megillah, he also knows more about the practice of medicine than me. But we're not talking about medicine, I mean things that are not part of medicine, not acceptable in medicine, and that I am able to recognize even though I am not a doctor. And his medical license is not going to intimidate me into accepting it.

When I was a young guy a doctor intentionally hurt me with a swab during an exam, because I was smarting off during his morality lecture. Yeah, you can guess what kind of exam. (And no I didn't have anything!) Now I know he had no business doing that. And I was the only one in the room with him when he did it, so who else is available to be the judge of his practices? He thought that because I was being a wise guy and because of the disrepute associated with the type of complaint, I was some kind of deprecated individual and he had the right to do that. Approaching psychopathy. It doesn't make me some kind of a cultist or conspiracy theorist to recognize these traits showing up in the modern practice of medicine and call them out.
link to original post

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: rxwine

Facts are facts

But where the rubber meets the road...

Do you want someone with an opinion that he can do major surgery on you?
Do you want someone with an opinion he knows how to fly your plane.
Do you want your ship pilot with an opinion he can take you safely across the ocean.

I could probably learn enough about Dentistry to sound informed enough to laymen, but you don't want me working on your teeth. (I start by pulling all of them)

Even still I don't discount experience alone. But you need something else (REFERENCEs!!!) i'm not taking your word or your smooth talking.

edit ; probably should be "just an opinion" for each one. Obviously a good surgeon has the opinion he can do major surgery.
link to original post

Opinion is one thing. Learned opinion is something altogether. Expert opinion is a higher bar still.
link to original post

Know much about automatic transmissions? The guy at the transmission shop sure does. He is absolutely an expert.

So you take your car to the transmission shop, he says there's something wrong with your transmission and tells you what repair he should do and how much it is going to cost. Do you just do whatever he tells you to do and pay whatever he tells you to pay without question, or do you feel as if it is your right to challenge his claims?

What? That's different? How?
link to original post

I know nothing about automatic transmissions. I bring my car to the shop and he gives me a diagnosis and a price to fix. I might bring it to another shop for a second opinion. Then I might bring it to a third. As a consumer, I have that right.

I know about changing oil and flushing radiator coolant and replacing engine and cabin air filters and changing a dead battery and doing spark plugs. If I want that service done, I'll ask around and get prices and what scope of work I can get for that cost. I also know about brake jobs, mounting tires and draining brake fluid. But I'd rather pierce my eardrums with an ice pick than do any of those jobs. In that case, I will again shop around for a price I am willing to pay for work I want done.

For my transmission, I am not an educated consumer and am at the whims of the merchant. In the other scenarios I am a more educated consumer, and am less at the whims of the merchant. In all cases I expect the merchant to be an expert at their craft.

I don't know what you're getting at, in all honesty.
link to original post

Yes, I also expect the merchant to be the expert. But... that does not necessarily mean he is using his expertise in an ethical way. The transmission guy who is a liar and a thief and tries to scam everybody who walks through his door is indeed an expert on transmissions and their repair. It's not whether or not he's an expert that's in question, it's what all else he is.

Likewise with doctors. A doctor who does malpractice, battery on a patient, on drugs, billing fraud, kickbacks, financially motivated unnecessary procedures, the whole megillah, he also knows more about the practice of medicine than me. But we're not talking about medicine, I mean things that are not part of medicine, not acceptable in medicine, and that I am able to recognize even though I am not a doctor. And his medical license is not going to intimidate me into accepting it.

When I was a young guy a doctor intentionally hurt me with a swab during an exam, because I was smarting off during his morality lecture. Yeah, you can guess what kind of exam. (And no I didn't have anything!) Now I know he had no business doing that. And I was the only one in the room with him when he did it, so who else is available to be the judge of his practices? He thought that because I was being a wise guy and because of the disrepute associated with the type of complaint, I was some kind of deprecated individual and he had the right to do that. Approaching psychopathy. It doesn't make me some kind of a cultist or conspiracy theorist to recognize these traits showing up in the modern practice of medicine and call them out.
link to original post

link to original post

Quote: DRich

I did medical research for three years so obviously I am qualified to answer all medical questions.
link to original post

Quote: gordonm888

If society is facing a novel threat then governments might follow the initial advice of credentialed experts - but everyone (government and experts) should keep their eyes and ears wide open as the situation progresses and they certainly should not shut down advice from other experts and reporting of what the public is actually experiencing.

Credentialed experts - and certainly scientists - are not truth tellers. They are concerned about maintaining their funding, maintaining their stature in the field (I.e., they don't want to admit error when they offer advice without fully understanding the novel threat they are facing). Scientists and doctors are as susceptible to professional envy, bias, greed, office politics and posterior protection as everyone else.

Censorship of the public and/or minority opinions of experts, even in an emergency, can be ruinous.
link to original post

Quote: rxwine

Quote: gordonm888

If society is facing a novel threat then governments might follow the initial advice of credentialed experts - but everyone (government and experts) should keep their eyes and ears wide open as the situation progresses and they certainly should not shut down advice from other experts and reporting of what the public is actually experiencing.

Credentialed experts - and certainly scientists - are not truth tellers. They are concerned about maintaining their funding, maintaining their stature in the field (I.e., they don't want to admit error when they offer advice without fully understanding the novel threat they are facing). Scientists and doctors are as susceptible to professional envy, bias, greed, office politics and posterior protection as everyone else.

Censorship of the public and/or minority opinions of experts, even in an emergency, can be ruinous.
link to original post

Besides experts, why are other people immune to folly? How many people give bad advice who aren’t being controlled by anyone?

Do you need links?

Here’s my test. A thousand engineers vs a thousand people who think they are as good as any engineer but had no certified training. Now imagine a thousand trials. My position is not that the experts won’t ever be wrong, but overall, they will be more right more often.

I’m not going to say people should be shut down though. Just not sure how much they should be featured, highlighted.
link to original post

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: rxwine

Quote: gordonm888

If society is facing a novel threat then governments might follow the initial advice of credentialed experts - but everyone (government and experts) should keep their eyes and ears wide open as the situation progresses and they certainly should not shut down advice from other experts and reporting of what the public is actually experiencing.

Credentialed experts - and certainly scientists - are not truth tellers. They are concerned about maintaining their funding, maintaining their stature in the field (I.e., they don't want to admit error when they offer advice without fully understanding the novel threat they are facing). Scientists and doctors are as susceptible to professional envy, bias, greed, office politics and posterior protection as everyone else.

Censorship of the public and/or minority opinions of experts, even in an emergency, can be ruinous.
link to original post

Besides experts, why are other people immune to folly? How many people give bad advice who aren’t being controlled by anyone?

Do you need links?

Here’s my test. A thousand engineers vs a thousand people who think they are as good as any engineer but had no certified training. Now imagine a thousand trials. My position is not that the experts won’t ever be wrong, but overall, they will be more right more often.

I’m not going to say people should be shut down though. Just not sure how much they should be featured, highlighted.
link to original post

Right, about what?

Let me rephrase that for you: you have a thousand engineers designing a product, and then a thousand completely uneducated, unqualified people who are also the people who are going to have to buy and use the product. Now who's right?
link to original post

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: DRich

I did medical research for three years so obviously I am qualified to answer all medical questions.
link to original post

I think I’m the only MD that posts here regularly, and I am not qualified to answer ‘all medical questions’ authoritatively. This forum is based on a variety of ill informed, partially informed, and fully informed members weighing in n a variety of issues. That’s what you get on an Internet forum. If I only want the opinions of other doctors I’ll go to the OR lounge and poll them.

I’d say I’m ‘authoritative’ in my field, anesthesiology, but might not be more knowledgeable on leukemia than a person who was diagnosed with it and read every iota about it.

‘Credentials’ only go so far.
link to original post

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: rxwine

Quote: gordonm888

If society is facing a novel threat then governments might follow the initial advice of credentialed experts - but everyone (government and experts) should keep their eyes and ears wide open as the situation progresses and they certainly should not shut down advice from other experts and reporting of what the public is actually experiencing.

Credentialed experts - and certainly scientists - are not truth tellers. They are concerned about maintaining their funding, maintaining their stature in the field (I.e., they don't want to admit error when they offer advice without fully understanding the novel threat they are facing). Scientists and doctors are as susceptible to professional envy, bias, greed, office politics and posterior protection as everyone else.

Censorship of the public and/or minority opinions of experts, even in an emergency, can be ruinous.
link to original post

Besides experts, why are other people immune to folly? How many people give bad advice who aren’t being controlled by anyone?

Do you need links?

Here’s my test. A thousand engineers vs a thousand people who think they are as good as any engineer but had no certified training. Now imagine a thousand trials. My position is not that the experts won’t ever be wrong, but overall, they will be more right more often.

I’m not going to say people should be shut down though. Just not sure how much they should be featured, highlighted.
link to original post

Right, about what?

Let me rephrase that for you: you have a thousand engineers designing a product, and then a thousand completely uneducated, unqualified people who are also the people who are going to have to buy and use the product. Now who's right?
link to original post

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: rxwine

Quote: gordonm888

If society is facing a novel threat then governments might follow the initial advice of credentialed experts - but everyone (government and experts) should keep their eyes and ears wide open as the situation progresses and they certainly should not shut down advice from other experts and reporting of what the public is actually experiencing.

Credentialed experts - and certainly scientists - are not truth tellers. They are concerned about maintaining their funding, maintaining their stature in the field (I.e., they don't want to admit error when they offer advice without fully understanding the novel threat they are facing). Scientists and doctors are as susceptible to professional envy, bias, greed, office politics and posterior protection as everyone else.

Censorship of the public and/or minority opinions of experts, even in an emergency, can be ruinous.
link to original post

Besides experts, why are other people immune to folly? How many people give bad advice who aren’t being controlled by anyone?

Do you need links?

Here’s my test. A thousand engineers vs a thousand people who think they are as good as any engineer but had no certified training. Now imagine a thousand trials. My position is not that the experts won’t ever be wrong, but overall, they will be more right more often.

I’m not going to say people should be shut down though. Just not sure how much they should be featured, highlighted.
link to original post

Right, about what?

Let me rephrase that for you: you have a thousand engineers designing a product, and then a thousand completely uneducated, unqualified people who are also the people who are going to have to buy and use the product. Now who's right?
link to original post

When making policy decisions, I would not advocate giving weight to uneducated unqualified people over educated, qualified people. But when faced with an emergency involving novel things that pose a danger, I would want to hear from both uneducated and educated people about what they are observing in order to evaluate whether the assumptions of the experts are valid.

For decision makers, a key skill is the ability to ask good questions of the scientists: "What are the uncertainties that affect your assessment?" 'What would others in the community say the leading alternatives are? "Can you quantify the expected benefits of following your recommendations?- will this action benefit us by 2% or 20% or 200%?" "What are the costs of this policy?" "Do we expect to learn new information in the next few weeks or months or years, and what kind of new info might indicate that we need to change course?" "Must we make this decision immediately or is there time for more review of your recommendations?"
link to original post

Quote: billryan

Just because someone doesn't have a fancy degree or bother studying a subject, why would their opinions be any less valid than the so-called experts?
If a homophobic racist uses ChatGPT to spout utter nonsense, does it matter if they have a degree?
link to original post

Quote: billryan

Things aren't homophobic or racist. People are, and once they have shown themselves to be as such, nothing they say or do is of interest to me. My time is better spent elsewhere.
link to original post

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: billryan

Things aren't homophobic or racist. People are, and once they have shown themselves to be as such, nothing they say or do is of interest to me. My time is better spent elsewhere.
link to original post

That is what the "ignore" feature is for. If you are afraid to engage it is there. Honestly, though, calling a person racist and homophobic is usually a cop-out. Like the kid who takes his ball and goes home. It also makes this kind of person weak intellectually as they never engage with people other than with which they totally agree.
link to original post