[Vision2020] [link added] We, Intoleristas . . .

Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Tue Jan 1 12:43:55 PST 2013 

Dan,

I should have been clearer in the point I was making because obviously
folks are misunderstanding what I'm saying.

Of course I sometimes question doctors. Nor am I an opponent of alternative
forms of medicine, which go against the consensus view of doctors. I really
do have a healthy level of skepticism about most issues and in general I
think that doing some research on your own, exploring options, etc. is a
good and rational thing to do.

But there are two things to say, which might help me to make my point more
clearly.

We want to distinguish between INDIVIDUAL decisions and decisions that we
make as a society in order to set PUBLIC POLICY. Suppose the overwhelming
medical community maintains that (just to use an example) AIDS is caused by
the HIV virus and needs to be treated as such but there are a few critics
who maintain otherwise. You, as a policy maker, do some research and find a
guy on the web (Peter Duesberg, for instance) who claims that AIDS is not
caused by HIV but is caused by non-infectious agents like illegal drug
usage. And suppose also that the scientific consensus is that the Duesberg
hypothesis has been discredited. As a policy maker, what do you do? Do you
go with the scientific consensus to set policy or do you favor the Duesberg
hypothesis? This is actually a TRUE case, by the way.

I think the rational thing to do from a policy standpoint is to go with
scientific consensus. If you think otherwise, I'd like to know why. If you
think this situation is different from the case under consideration --
where we have Paul versus overwhelming scientific consensus -- I'd like to
know what the relevant difference is. One difference is that Duesberg is
actually a professor of molecular and cell biology at UC-Berkeley whereas
Paul is an untrained layperson. But that isn't too relevant since likely
there are trained scientists who hold Paul's view, as well. If you think it
is ridiculous to trust the word of Duesberg but OK to trust the word of
Paul or (someone else who shares his views), yet there is NO relevant
difference between the two cases, that strikes me as irrational.

Note that it is one thing for you to make individual personal decisions
about your own medical care and another for you to make decisions that
affect the lives of others. When we're dealing with the latter -- and this
is where the threat of global warming is much different than any individual
medical decision -- we should go with consensus opinion.

But there is another issue in even the particular individual case. Suppose
there is a consensus view about cancer treatment. You do some research and
find a treatment that is controversial and decide to go with that instead.
Why? What could be the basis of your decision? Gut instinct? Add to that
the same factor we have in the case of AIDS and global warming, e.g., that
the consensus view isn't just different but that the controversial view has
been DISCREDITED, then I'd really wonder why on earth you would rationally
choose it over the consensus view.

Paul makes it seem as if there is some debatable issue here when there
isn't. Of course, no one knows anything for certain. You could be in the
Matrix world for all you know. But accepting that as a possibility is one
thing. Thinking that just because you can't PROVE that you're not in the
Matrix world that you should accept that you are, or that it is a debatable
issue whether or not you are in the Matrix world is another thing. The
latter is lunacy.

In matters of policy, "Trust the experts, especially if the overwhelming
opinion of the exerts is that the alternative view has been discredited"
should be the mantra. Personally I think this goes in the individual case,
too, but it is up to you and Paul and everyone else to decide for
themselves what you want to believe.

Joe

professor of molecular
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_biology> and cell
biology <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_biology> at the University of
California, Berkeley<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California,_Berkeley>.


The Duesberg hypothesis
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duesberg_hypothesis>promoted by
biologist Peter
Duesberg <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Duesberg> argues that AIDS is
not caused by HIV, but rather that HIV is a harmless passenger
virus<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_virus>,
and that AIDS is caused by non-infectious agents like illegal drug usage.[18
]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discredited_AIDS_origins_theories#cite_note-18>The
scientific consensus is that the Duesberg hypothesis has been
discredited.

On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Dan Carscallen <areaman at moscow.com> wrote:

> Do you never get a second opinion when you go to the doc? All I can say is
> that on day-to-day stuff, probably not, but if its something huge and
> potentially life-altering, darn right I do, and there's a good chance I'm
> going to do some research of my own.
>
> DC
>
> On Jan 1, 2013, at 11:46, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Even in the case of medicine? Do you trust no one? Sorry but I don't
> believe you!
>
> I'm not denying that a healthy dose of skepticism is a good thing.
> Actually, I consider myself a bit of a skeptic about almost any topic.
>
> But when push comes to shove and a decision needs to be made and we're
> considering matters of science in order to set public policy, I don't see a
> better general rule than "Follow the overwhelming consensus." I don't see
> "Follow the guy who thinks about it in his spare time instead of the
> consensus opinion of the experts" as a very good GENERAL rule to follow,
> and neither do you. Or at least you shouldn't.
>
> That is not dogmatism; it is common sense.
>
> On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Steven Basoa <sbasoa at moscow.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 1, 2013, at 11:11 AM, Joe Campbell wrote:
>>
>> >Then we come down to the issue of what I or anyone else should do when
>> given the choice of (a) believing what the majority of experts say on >ANY
>> topic or (b) believing what you say, given that you have no formal
>> training, education, or expertise.
>>
>> I have always found that a healthy dose of skepticism is almost always
>> warranted, no matter the subject.
>>
>> >The wise decision is (a). Even you will agree in most cases that this
>> general way of thinking is correct.
>>
>> Why will Paul agree to this?  Because you say so?  There you go being
>> dogmatic yet again...   ;-]
>>
>> -SB
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ==============================**=========================
>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>               http://www.fsr.net
>>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> ==============================**=========================
>>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
> =======================================================
>
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130101/effa5740/attachment.html>

More information about the Vision2020 mailing list