I love this substack. I have had all these thoughts over the past two years but could not articulate them as well. I have shared your posts with brainwashed people but alas, to no avail. Maybe because they’re midway sophists. They are also very pretentious, which seems to go hand in hand.
"A problem with anecdotes is that they are often just a few data points, and they are not the result of controlled experiments. This causes some people to discount them altogether, and relatedly, claim that RCTs (randomized controlled trials) are the “gold standard of evidence."
Funny thing is the same deep pocket corps who insist only RCT evidence has value also pay vast numbers of social media influencers because most ordinary individuals tend to put more weight on anecdotes related by a trusted individual.
Every playground has more useful information from other parents than official sources. For more than a decade doctors were surgically implanting tubes in the ears of kids with chronic ear infections and continued long after parents knew cutting dairy in the diets solved the problem.
Of course there are no sponsors for trials that make folks healthier w dietary balance.
Establishing the veracity of something's ability to produce a desired outcome by scientific means & marketing something to the masses using social media are two completely different propositions . Neither of which give any credence to using anecdotes when attempting to draw a factual conclusion on anything . And neither negates the other . Apples & M-16s ,my friend ...
"Neither of which give any credence to using anecdotes when attempting to draw a factual conclusion on anything"
Gotta disagree.. shared experience identified by anecdotal frequency is how the public has flagged toxic activity from Love Canal to opioid epidemic.. it's not until enough of the public has personal experience and the taboo topics are popular anecdotes that corp powers default to some investigation.
"And neither negates the other . Apples & M-16s ,my friend ... "
Disagree again.. lies become too big to hide and propaganda churned out as sock puppet PR anecdotes have a short shelf life unlike truthful personal accounts that validate real problems... not sure why MI6 is noted when the psyops cabal casts a broad net of global media & NGOs.
Here's the thing : It doesn't matter if you disagree ... I stated a simple point of logic ... Anecdotes cannot be evidence as per the 1st Logical Absolute ... Anecdotes are claims ... We investigate claims to find evidence of their veracity ... A claim cannot be evidence of itself ... It's shocking to have to explain this to an adult. This is covered in the most basic ,casual, surveys of logic ,science, & your legal system. It's a construct called the "burden of proof" When you assert something (make a claim with an anecdote ) ,you assume the burden of proof ... You have to show evidence to support your claim . Your anecdote isn't evidence of your anecdote. You need evidence to support an anecdote ... And no, Love Canal & the opioid mess were not uncovered by personal anecdotes ... The notion is patently ridiculous. These things came to light through analysis of data . Rare cancers linked to carcinogens arising in small clusters is tested ,verifiable, falsifiable ,data that suggests a nearby accumulation of a carcinogen.
When you find it in a body ,that's data .. That,s not someone's personal anecdote ... Holy Hell ... Spikes in the numbers of overdoses, rehab admissions, & corporate profits are not anecdotes ... It's evidence ...
As per your second disagreement , I have no clue what you're talking about ... You didn't address any point I made ....And the point was a simple one ... A corporation testing the efficacy of a product and a corporation marketing a product are two different propositions .........
You need to ask yourself why you disagreed with a few demonstrably factual points of basic logic ... Whatever the cause was ,you need to address it ... It leads you to bad decisions ... Fix it ... Devote some time to remedial study (precision of language, science, logic) , & then comment ...Here's the thing : It doesn't matter if you disagree ... I stated a simple point of logic ... Anecdotes cannot be evidence as per the 1st Logical Absolute ... Anecdotes are claims ... We investigate claims to find evidence of their veracity ... A claim cannot be evidence of itself ... It's shocking to have to explain this to an adult. This is covered in the most basic ,casual, surveys of logic ,science, & your legal system. It's a construct called the "burden of proof" When you assert something (make a claim with an anecdote ) ,you assume the burden of proof ... You have to show evidence to support your claim . Your anecdote isn't evidence of your anecdote. You need evidence to support an anecdote ... And no, Love Canal & the opioid mess were not uncovered by personal anecdotes ... The notion is patently ridiculous. These things came to light through analysis of data . Rare cancers linked to carcinogens arising in small clusters is tested ,verifiable, falsifiable ,data that suggests a nearby accumulation of a carcinogen.
When you find it in a body ,that's data .. That,s not someone's personal anecdote ... Holy Hell ... Spikes in the numbers of overdoses, rehab admissions, & corporate profits are not anecdotes ... It's evidence ...
As per your second disagreement , I have no clue what you're talking about ... You didn't address any point I made ....And the point was a simple one ... A corporation testing the efficacy of a product and a corporation marketing a product are two different propositions .........
You need to ask yourself why you disagreed with a few demonstrably factual points of basic logic ... Whatever the cause was ,you need to address it ... It leads you to bad decisions ... Fix it ... Devote some time to remedial study (precision of language, science, logic) , & then comment ...
It seems like you were generous with whatever you were imbibing. While your points are well taken, they are, well, twice taken. Did you look over what you wrote? I love logic, by the way.
I've found that reiterating a point ,once by stating it & once restating it with the terms actually defined for the context they're being used in ,is a "best practice" when dealing with people who take a political position & attempt to shore it up with science ... It's essentially a sure fire path to being wrong ... We don't begin with conclusions & seek out evidence to support them. We draw conclusions from scientific evidence ...
In the end ,the point remains : Personal anecdotes are not evidence of anything ... They are claims ... Evidence is what arises in attempts to investigate or substantiate a claim. While one may take issue with the tone that reality is spelled out for them , one cannot deny the reality ...
That's about the depth of response one can expect from someone who can't differentiate between anecdote & evidence with a 5th grade level of understanding ...
I always think of the career of Judah Folkman, and how his theories on angiogenesis and cancer were so mocked by the scientific establishment until they turned out to be correct.
Doesn't the Bayesian approach to data analysis depend upon the principle of "The truth is somewhere in the middle?" I mean, the investigator has a prior, then collects data, and then adjusts the prior with the data. This adjustment is more or less "looking for the truth somewhere in the middle."
P-values be damned, indeed, agreed. I think of large standard errors as denoting imprecision, not inaccuracy. Especially in instances where other datasets show a similar beta effect.
I agree with Bob's comment. Its easy to dismiss those who don't get it re: vaccines as sophists, midwits, dimwits, stupids, dumbos, etc. Yes, its very frustrating dealing with them, yes, they fall into all the traps Ms. Kim stated here.
The reality, though, is that they are falling into 'lazy thinking', as noted by the the blogger 'the Midwestern Doctor.' And I believe that we all have a tendency to do this - just on different topics. Just because we may reason in a clear and sophisticated manner regarding vaccines does not in anyway mean we do so regarding all topics.
We all have to be constantly on our guard against lazy thinking. It does not help that, especially in this day and age, its mentally exhausting and extremely time consuming.
I'm actually quite pessimistic about our ability to do this; in this age of extreme disinformation, how can we possibly think and reason in a sophisticated manner regarding all key topics, whatever they maybe?
And what's the real point in labeling people as such anyway, other than venting one's frustration, maybe getting a bit of an ego boost? Is such labeling itself a sign of some lazy thinking? Because the real question is why do they (and all of us) at times fall into lazy thinking? How can they, and we, recognize when this happens and correct ourselves?
And what larger forces are at play that are heavily promoting such thinking? Shouldn't we tailor our frustration at them, and not at the victims, who are at best pawns?
what you've said here, IMHO, can also be used to support the idea of free and open discussion of all ideas, however fringe or stupid or perhaps evil, to the maximum extent allowed by the First Amendment.
the practice by Big Tech of interfering with speech, of suppressing speech on their platforms, is quite harmful. we absolutely need the freedom to have wide ranging discussions so that we, as a group, have a remedy for lazy thinking. when "an expert" or a "government authority" engages in lazy thinking, others need the freedom to enter the debate and push back, or correct that mistake.
The term they like to fling around when trying to claim their own superiority (appeal to their own authority) is Dunning-Kruger. It's amazing to have arguments with some of these people...
In one argument I got told:
1. Don't appeal to authority, then
2. You suffer from Dunning-Kruger effect (strange... I thought the appeal to authority would have voided that claim) then
3. Stop mansplaining because the female I was talking to apparently had so much more expertise than I could ever have thanks to all her hours of lab-work.... this was again quite strange since I didn't even know the person was female (she had a generic nickname on the forum) and it seemed to me to just be an appeal to authority which I was apparently not allowed to use...
When I pointed out that statistically the most likely outcome from the data provided was still a 40% RR irrespective of the p value, they of course just kept saying the results were statistically not significant and kept saying that this means there was no benefit...
Eventually when they could not explain away the fact that they were making absolute statements on massively underpowered RCTs without even being able to tell me the likelihood of a Type-II error and that the statistically most likely outcome was still a pretty big benefit I got blocked with a final Dunning Kruger good-bye.
2. it makes sense to me that something will be more likely correct after several adequately qualified* pairs of eyes have looked at something and not found errors. Bias in the negative direction should not be so bad if one doesn't just accept someone saying "uh thats so wrong" -> study garbage, but instead examines the explanation for what is wrong and how? Reviewers _not_ finding fault slips through more easily by a 3rd party who also just glances over, because of missing contrast, I guess.
* With something new, radical, or/and requiring a unique mix of interdisciplinary knowledge, perhaps difficult. Still can scan for basic errors -> better than no review?
Then of course, if a number of reviewers, coincidentally receiving research funds by a certain "Foundation", break loose a shitstorm threatening to quit unless papers with "wrong" conclusions get retracted, and it works... makes it seem questionable how well peer review currently works.
But something that _does_ seem to be important and have been introduced for good reasons, currently being compromised, does not imply: "oh it's not working, hence all not reviewed stuff is fine, no worries"?
I mean, our car safety testing standards of today were not present at all, not even in a badly working form, in the, say, 1940s. Would you not, still, prefer sitting in a car tested according to today's standards, even if yes, 1940 had working cars and not everyone died...?
That said, I found it somewhat amusing when I saw someone dismissing a study preprint referenced by R.Malone, stating "Malone? That guy who doesn't understand the difference between preprints and peer-reviewed?" because M. was indicating that thing probably had significance.
He was kinda missing the fact that for the subject areas of the study, Malone *is a* _peer_, and just publicly reviewed it. Lol. Just because he's not on the official review team of a particular journal... mere organizatorial fact (or worse).
3. An experienced doctor is not the collection of a mess of vague tales of different people often not even understanding the question properly or/and being subject to (auto-)suggestion. It is one mind, sorting out experiences with prior expert knowledge, and connecting it more in practise, so his abstract understanding becomes ever more intuitive and solidified. This process is guided by feedback, i.e. if not a total dummy, realizes what worked better in what circumstances and vice versa. I don't recognize the analogy there in "a bunch of people saying things".
The experienced doctor _tested_ his ideas, repeatedly, in substantial numbers and differently shaped cases. It's not as systematic as studies (depends on the doc I guess). But not anecdotes either (aka hearsay, in its worst form, with stages of indirection, with a lack of clarity and different ideas in different minds about what the question is) .
My idea of the use for anectoes was: show you where to do proper research next. No?
Not as its replacement, unless it's really urgent and they're the best you got.
4. "But doesn’t this fly in the face of “The vaccines save lives” trope? If those results were not a “red flag,” I don’t know what is."
Funny doctor that. So MORE people DYING in the treated group than placebo, for a product that is supposed to REDUCE DYING, isn't an important fact because the more-dying is not statistically significant? Maybe it's because "I'm not a doctor", but it would seem that conversely, the frickin product should demonstrate signficantly _fewer_ deaths in the treated group if it were worth any praise, huh? We're not dealing with a too small bad signal, we're dealing with the entire lack of a clear good one that should be expected, or what am I missing?
As for sophists and midwits aligning, well. There seem to be master sophists, who know exactly what they are doing, training the midwit ones how to say the right things. In some cases more, in others less formally.
When I read in the text that someone ACTUALLY SAID that x numbers of deaths could be written off as statistically insignificant, I was frankly horrified. Dead is forever. The dead have loved ones looking for answers, and they will be told what, that because they hands only have ten fingers, we can’t count him? Good grief. They should just be honest and say what is true: this is a novel,situation/condition/epidemic, and we don’t have all,of the answers yet. Better that than, hey, your numbers are too small for us to go after an answer. I am not a philosopher, an academic, a scientist, a journalist, but I am able to understand double-speak, and that’s what this seems to be.
One of the elephants in the room, on this topic, is that there's no credential that can ever represent Agency, by which I mean actively pitting yourself at the question, with all reasonable methods at your disposal.
Credentials are, at root, social approval. Letters of introduction, proof you've been "vetted" by your "alleged" betters in a field.
But Agency, itself, waxes and wanes, due to EVERY circumstance in life. We have all been "on point" or "in the zone" at times, and other times, we have all "run on empty" or "rested on our laurels".
It seems that the Credentialist Faithful fail to recognize that a credential is, at root, merely a social mechanism to screen applicants to the specific group to which the credential pertains, but it's not proof of present or future merit in that group or field.
Oppositely, and I admit, more perilously, a lack of a credentials does NOT necessirily mean someone is totally ignorant of a field, or doesn't understand enough to question a particular group or feild.
I love this substack. I have had all these thoughts over the past two years but could not articulate them as well. I have shared your posts with brainwashed people but alas, to no avail. Maybe because they’re midway sophists. They are also very pretentious, which seems to go hand in hand.
"A problem with anecdotes is that they are often just a few data points, and they are not the result of controlled experiments. This causes some people to discount them altogether, and relatedly, claim that RCTs (randomized controlled trials) are the “gold standard of evidence."
Funny thing is the same deep pocket corps who insist only RCT evidence has value also pay vast numbers of social media influencers because most ordinary individuals tend to put more weight on anecdotes related by a trusted individual.
Every playground has more useful information from other parents than official sources. For more than a decade doctors were surgically implanting tubes in the ears of kids with chronic ear infections and continued long after parents knew cutting dairy in the diets solved the problem.
Of course there are no sponsors for trials that make folks healthier w dietary balance.
Establishing the veracity of something's ability to produce a desired outcome by scientific means & marketing something to the masses using social media are two completely different propositions . Neither of which give any credence to using anecdotes when attempting to draw a factual conclusion on anything . And neither negates the other . Apples & M-16s ,my friend ...
"Neither of which give any credence to using anecdotes when attempting to draw a factual conclusion on anything"
Gotta disagree.. shared experience identified by anecdotal frequency is how the public has flagged toxic activity from Love Canal to opioid epidemic.. it's not until enough of the public has personal experience and the taboo topics are popular anecdotes that corp powers default to some investigation.
"And neither negates the other . Apples & M-16s ,my friend ... "
Disagree again.. lies become too big to hide and propaganda churned out as sock puppet PR anecdotes have a short shelf life unlike truthful personal accounts that validate real problems... not sure why MI6 is noted when the psyops cabal casts a broad net of global media & NGOs.
Here's the thing : It doesn't matter if you disagree ... I stated a simple point of logic ... Anecdotes cannot be evidence as per the 1st Logical Absolute ... Anecdotes are claims ... We investigate claims to find evidence of their veracity ... A claim cannot be evidence of itself ... It's shocking to have to explain this to an adult. This is covered in the most basic ,casual, surveys of logic ,science, & your legal system. It's a construct called the "burden of proof" When you assert something (make a claim with an anecdote ) ,you assume the burden of proof ... You have to show evidence to support your claim . Your anecdote isn't evidence of your anecdote. You need evidence to support an anecdote ... And no, Love Canal & the opioid mess were not uncovered by personal anecdotes ... The notion is patently ridiculous. These things came to light through analysis of data . Rare cancers linked to carcinogens arising in small clusters is tested ,verifiable, falsifiable ,data that suggests a nearby accumulation of a carcinogen.
When you find it in a body ,that's data .. That,s not someone's personal anecdote ... Holy Hell ... Spikes in the numbers of overdoses, rehab admissions, & corporate profits are not anecdotes ... It's evidence ...
As per your second disagreement , I have no clue what you're talking about ... You didn't address any point I made ....And the point was a simple one ... A corporation testing the efficacy of a product and a corporation marketing a product are two different propositions .........
You need to ask yourself why you disagreed with a few demonstrably factual points of basic logic ... Whatever the cause was ,you need to address it ... It leads you to bad decisions ... Fix it ... Devote some time to remedial study (precision of language, science, logic) , & then comment ...Here's the thing : It doesn't matter if you disagree ... I stated a simple point of logic ... Anecdotes cannot be evidence as per the 1st Logical Absolute ... Anecdotes are claims ... We investigate claims to find evidence of their veracity ... A claim cannot be evidence of itself ... It's shocking to have to explain this to an adult. This is covered in the most basic ,casual, surveys of logic ,science, & your legal system. It's a construct called the "burden of proof" When you assert something (make a claim with an anecdote ) ,you assume the burden of proof ... You have to show evidence to support your claim . Your anecdote isn't evidence of your anecdote. You need evidence to support an anecdote ... And no, Love Canal & the opioid mess were not uncovered by personal anecdotes ... The notion is patently ridiculous. These things came to light through analysis of data . Rare cancers linked to carcinogens arising in small clusters is tested ,verifiable, falsifiable ,data that suggests a nearby accumulation of a carcinogen.
When you find it in a body ,that's data .. That,s not someone's personal anecdote ... Holy Hell ... Spikes in the numbers of overdoses, rehab admissions, & corporate profits are not anecdotes ... It's evidence ...
As per your second disagreement , I have no clue what you're talking about ... You didn't address any point I made ....And the point was a simple one ... A corporation testing the efficacy of a product and a corporation marketing a product are two different propositions .........
You need to ask yourself why you disagreed with a few demonstrably factual points of basic logic ... Whatever the cause was ,you need to address it ... It leads you to bad decisions ... Fix it ... Devote some time to remedial study (precision of language, science, logic) , & then comment ...
It seems like you were generous with whatever you were imbibing. While your points are well taken, they are, well, twice taken. Did you look over what you wrote? I love logic, by the way.
I've found that reiterating a point ,once by stating it & once restating it with the terms actually defined for the context they're being used in ,is a "best practice" when dealing with people who take a political position & attempt to shore it up with science ... It's essentially a sure fire path to being wrong ... We don't begin with conclusions & seek out evidence to support them. We draw conclusions from scientific evidence ...
In the end ,the point remains : Personal anecdotes are not evidence of anything ... They are claims ... Evidence is what arises in attempts to investigate or substantiate a claim. While one may take issue with the tone that reality is spelled out for them , one cannot deny the reality ...
#lolwut
That's about the depth of response one can expect from someone who can't differentiate between anecdote & evidence with a 5th grade level of understanding ...
yawn!
"Ignorance is Strength" It is amazing how many people are willing to outsource their thinking and reasoning to "experts".
I always think of the career of Judah Folkman, and how his theories on angiogenesis and cancer were so mocked by the scientific establishment until they turned out to be correct.
Well put. Describes a multitude of Climate Bloggers with remarkable accuracy.
Thank you.
6. “The truth is somewhere in the middle”
I hear this one from people who are actually very intelligent; people who are neither sophist nor midwit. It’s an easy one to fall for.
-------
Made me think of this:
"My pledge to you is that I will do my best to try to balance out these more controversial viewpoints with other people’s perspectives.
So we can maybe find a better point of view."
--------
Joe Rogan's Instagram hostage statement apology of sorts and Spotify Hub plan to rectify having on Dr. Robert Malone
Doesn't the Bayesian approach to data analysis depend upon the principle of "The truth is somewhere in the middle?" I mean, the investigator has a prior, then collects data, and then adjusts the prior with the data. This adjustment is more or less "looking for the truth somewhere in the middle."
P-values be damned, indeed, agreed. I think of large standard errors as denoting imprecision, not inaccuracy. Especially in instances where other datasets show a similar beta effect.
What's the derogatory name-calling term for folks who mock others with derogatory name calling terms?
Fritwits?
In any case stop adding to that same stream of perdition.
I agree with Bob's comment. Its easy to dismiss those who don't get it re: vaccines as sophists, midwits, dimwits, stupids, dumbos, etc. Yes, its very frustrating dealing with them, yes, they fall into all the traps Ms. Kim stated here.
The reality, though, is that they are falling into 'lazy thinking', as noted by the the blogger 'the Midwestern Doctor.' And I believe that we all have a tendency to do this - just on different topics. Just because we may reason in a clear and sophisticated manner regarding vaccines does not in anyway mean we do so regarding all topics.
We all have to be constantly on our guard against lazy thinking. It does not help that, especially in this day and age, its mentally exhausting and extremely time consuming.
I'm actually quite pessimistic about our ability to do this; in this age of extreme disinformation, how can we possibly think and reason in a sophisticated manner regarding all key topics, whatever they maybe?
And what's the real point in labeling people as such anyway, other than venting one's frustration, maybe getting a bit of an ego boost? Is such labeling itself a sign of some lazy thinking? Because the real question is why do they (and all of us) at times fall into lazy thinking? How can they, and we, recognize when this happens and correct ourselves?
And what larger forces are at play that are heavily promoting such thinking? Shouldn't we tailor our frustration at them, and not at the victims, who are at best pawns?
what you've said here, IMHO, can also be used to support the idea of free and open discussion of all ideas, however fringe or stupid or perhaps evil, to the maximum extent allowed by the First Amendment.
the practice by Big Tech of interfering with speech, of suppressing speech on their platforms, is quite harmful. we absolutely need the freedom to have wide ranging discussions so that we, as a group, have a remedy for lazy thinking. when "an expert" or a "government authority" engages in lazy thinking, others need the freedom to enter the debate and push back, or correct that mistake.
I’m sure Ms. Kim appreciates your witty instruction to her.
I await your future insightful and humble advice with great anticipation.
This is so.
A better title for this article would be, "How to take apart medical disinformation bullshit."
Good article. Thank you.
The term they like to fling around when trying to claim their own superiority (appeal to their own authority) is Dunning-Kruger. It's amazing to have arguments with some of these people...
In one argument I got told:
1. Don't appeal to authority, then
2. You suffer from Dunning-Kruger effect (strange... I thought the appeal to authority would have voided that claim) then
3. Stop mansplaining because the female I was talking to apparently had so much more expertise than I could ever have thanks to all her hours of lab-work.... this was again quite strange since I didn't even know the person was female (she had a generic nickname on the forum) and it seemed to me to just be an appeal to authority which I was apparently not allowed to use...
When I pointed out that statistically the most likely outcome from the data provided was still a 40% RR irrespective of the p value, they of course just kept saying the results were statistically not significant and kept saying that this means there was no benefit...
Eventually when they could not explain away the fact that they were making absolute statements on massively underpowered RCTs without even being able to tell me the likelihood of a Type-II error and that the statistically most likely outcome was still a pretty big benefit I got blocked with a final Dunning Kruger good-bye.
When it comes to peer-review, the absolute best example showing how BS it is, is the Corman Drosten paper that was peer reviewed in what time frame?
Fun thread about it here:
https://www.goddek.com/review-process-of-the-corman-drosten-paper/
2. it makes sense to me that something will be more likely correct after several adequately qualified* pairs of eyes have looked at something and not found errors. Bias in the negative direction should not be so bad if one doesn't just accept someone saying "uh thats so wrong" -> study garbage, but instead examines the explanation for what is wrong and how? Reviewers _not_ finding fault slips through more easily by a 3rd party who also just glances over, because of missing contrast, I guess.
* With something new, radical, or/and requiring a unique mix of interdisciplinary knowledge, perhaps difficult. Still can scan for basic errors -> better than no review?
Then of course, if a number of reviewers, coincidentally receiving research funds by a certain "Foundation", break loose a shitstorm threatening to quit unless papers with "wrong" conclusions get retracted, and it works... makes it seem questionable how well peer review currently works.
But something that _does_ seem to be important and have been introduced for good reasons, currently being compromised, does not imply: "oh it's not working, hence all not reviewed stuff is fine, no worries"?
I mean, our car safety testing standards of today were not present at all, not even in a badly working form, in the, say, 1940s. Would you not, still, prefer sitting in a car tested according to today's standards, even if yes, 1940 had working cars and not everyone died...?
That said, I found it somewhat amusing when I saw someone dismissing a study preprint referenced by R.Malone, stating "Malone? That guy who doesn't understand the difference between preprints and peer-reviewed?" because M. was indicating that thing probably had significance.
He was kinda missing the fact that for the subject areas of the study, Malone *is a* _peer_, and just publicly reviewed it. Lol. Just because he's not on the official review team of a particular journal... mere organizatorial fact (or worse).
3. An experienced doctor is not the collection of a mess of vague tales of different people often not even understanding the question properly or/and being subject to (auto-)suggestion. It is one mind, sorting out experiences with prior expert knowledge, and connecting it more in practise, so his abstract understanding becomes ever more intuitive and solidified. This process is guided by feedback, i.e. if not a total dummy, realizes what worked better in what circumstances and vice versa. I don't recognize the analogy there in "a bunch of people saying things".
The experienced doctor _tested_ his ideas, repeatedly, in substantial numbers and differently shaped cases. It's not as systematic as studies (depends on the doc I guess). But not anecdotes either (aka hearsay, in its worst form, with stages of indirection, with a lack of clarity and different ideas in different minds about what the question is) .
My idea of the use for anectoes was: show you where to do proper research next. No?
Not as its replacement, unless it's really urgent and they're the best you got.
4. "But doesn’t this fly in the face of “The vaccines save lives” trope? If those results were not a “red flag,” I don’t know what is."
Funny doctor that. So MORE people DYING in the treated group than placebo, for a product that is supposed to REDUCE DYING, isn't an important fact because the more-dying is not statistically significant? Maybe it's because "I'm not a doctor", but it would seem that conversely, the frickin product should demonstrate signficantly _fewer_ deaths in the treated group if it were worth any praise, huh? We're not dealing with a too small bad signal, we're dealing with the entire lack of a clear good one that should be expected, or what am I missing?
As for sophists and midwits aligning, well. There seem to be master sophists, who know exactly what they are doing, training the midwit ones how to say the right things. In some cases more, in others less formally.
When I read in the text that someone ACTUALLY SAID that x numbers of deaths could be written off as statistically insignificant, I was frankly horrified. Dead is forever. The dead have loved ones looking for answers, and they will be told what, that because they hands only have ten fingers, we can’t count him? Good grief. They should just be honest and say what is true: this is a novel,situation/condition/epidemic, and we don’t have all,of the answers yet. Better that than, hey, your numbers are too small for us to go after an answer. I am not a philosopher, an academic, a scientist, a journalist, but I am able to understand double-speak, and that’s what this seems to be.
One of the elephants in the room, on this topic, is that there's no credential that can ever represent Agency, by which I mean actively pitting yourself at the question, with all reasonable methods at your disposal.
Credentials are, at root, social approval. Letters of introduction, proof you've been "vetted" by your "alleged" betters in a field.
But Agency, itself, waxes and wanes, due to EVERY circumstance in life. We have all been "on point" or "in the zone" at times, and other times, we have all "run on empty" or "rested on our laurels".
It seems that the Credentialist Faithful fail to recognize that a credential is, at root, merely a social mechanism to screen applicants to the specific group to which the credential pertains, but it's not proof of present or future merit in that group or field.
Oppositely, and I admit, more perilously, a lack of a credentials does NOT necessirily mean someone is totally ignorant of a field, or doesn't understand enough to question a particular group or feild.
Applied science has no such problem, in that its one and only focus is real world solutions. Sophists and midwits are quickly shown the door.
Where can I read your bio?