Comments
Glugly_ t1_irgoz6x wrote
Dangerous drugs getting by is not the only issue, and as you point out, rarely happens. What does happen often is mediocre or simply ineffective treatments that are lauded due to financial incentive. This can happen even in highly controlled trials by over exaggerating moderate to mild findings to a public that either doesn’t have access to or doesn’t understand the literature. Also, all methods of data analysis have their flaws, and there are plenty of ways to both incidentally and purposefully end up with significant findings where there are none in reality.
And I’m glad you mention how the replication crisis is worse in psychology. I’m currently in graduate training to be a research psychologist, and the first month of our clinical research methods class has had a continual discussion of scientific integrity, how to identify flawed or overblown findings, and the danger (and reality) of financial incentive’s effects on research.
AnesthesiaFetish t1_irh7c3g wrote
I haven't heard that phrase before, "clinical corruption".
PrimePhilosophy t1_irfwadg wrote
"If the clinical trial process was truly rigged, wouldn't we see a much higher approval rate for them?" - Not necessarily. If a major factor for approvals is money then the most wealthy clients/applications may have a tendency for approval. Note that the FDA is massively funded by the same pharma industry they're supposed to be regulating.
8Splendiferous8 t1_irh9544 wrote
Just because 14% isn't 50% doesn't mean that bad science isn't passing through the filter. And whataboutism, especially pointing at a social science for replication, certainly doesn't invalidate the points this article is making. Doctors are fire hosed with pharmaceutical propaganda under the guise of impartial science.
HeroicKatora t1_irgy337 wrote
> When six out of seven of you experiments end in failure and the median cost for each failure is $20 million you'd think the process is very rigorous.
That's far from sufficient to consider the approval process rigorous, it's not even necessary. Particle Physics is very rigorous but still they don't fail more than six of seven experiments.
The solution to this paradox is that the reject rate doesn't tell you that much about the quality of the selection process. If at all it may reveal something about our collective ability to formulate correct hypotheses (based on understanding of the subject) for this experimental process.
massivepanda t1_irhe8ge wrote
“Through web searches and online services such as LinkedIn, however, Science has discovered that 11 of 16 FDA medical examiners who worked on 28 drug approvals and then left the agency for new jobs are now employed by or consult for the companies they recently regulated. This can create at least the appearance of conflicts of inter
iiioiia t1_irf0cxr wrote
Question:
a) if .01% of a system is genuinely rigged, is this statement as a binary True or False: "The system is rigged."
b) if two people answer differently, is one of them correct and the other incorrect, objectively and necessarily?
Eedat t1_irf3ufr wrote
I would say presenting it as binary is ridiculous and intentionally misleading.
iiioiia t1_irf8z2j wrote
It might be, if the person was making an assertion rather than asking questions (which is what I'm doing), and then only if they asserted that the representation is an accurate representation rather than a hypothetical thought experiment, and also if they genuinely intended to mislead people.
But then, this assumes a flawlessly rational observer, which is perhaps not a safe assumption....so maybe you are (kind of) right after all!
Interestingly, it is very easy to mislead people while being genuinely sincere and acting "in good faith" - for example, might it be possible that your comment could be misleading?
Eedat t1_irfsgzg wrote
I would say if you saw a system was 0.01% rigged and you presented it as "the system is rigged" with no further clarification you are being very intentionally misleading. This would be a case where "technically correct" is actually dead wrong
iiioiia t1_irft2zz wrote
> I would say if you saw a system was 0.01% rigged and you presented it as "the system is rigged" with no further clarification you are being very intentionally misleading.
In my case you would be correct on the "intentionally" part, but this may not be a safe bet with most people. Remember: everyone is doing their best.
> This would be a case where "technically correct" is actually dead wrong
Disagree - technically, it "is" correct (well, depending one the particular implementation of isRigged() one is using, and whether the implementation changes per topic). It is not comprehensively correct though!
[deleted] t1_irfw5l2 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_irfxeu8 wrote
[removed]
BernardJOrtcutt t1_iricmra wrote
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Be Respectful
>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
CatJamarchist t1_irf4usd wrote
>if .01% of a system is genuinely rigged,
What does this even mean? How can a system be 0.01% rigged?
Are you staying that 1 in every 10 thousand drugs is going to erroneously pass a clinical trial - because what? The system chose to rig it in that particular drugs favour? That doesn't make much sense. It's much more likely that in this proposed scenario the drug would be erroneously approved due to the actions of a single, or a few corrupt individuals - which does not represent the system.
VitriolicViolet t1_irgm9nz wrote
>How can a system be 0.01% rigged?
well look at US 'democracy' i would argue its 1% rigged (arbitrary number but still).
if the people who fund both political parties want certain outcomes and pay both parties to provide it (say lower corporate taxes and larger subsidies) and the people then vote attempting to increase corporate taxes only to have either victor lower them would that not be an example of how you can rig a system with only 1% rigging?
personally i think voting is rigged in this very way, parties do what their doors want first and foremost while the people are desperate and stupid enough to believe they have any actual say. no actual 'rigging' just mutual self-interest by those with the most say over society.
iiioiia t1_irf8p2s wrote
> What does this even mean? How can a system be 0.01% rigged?
Imagine a system composed of X departments or modules - simply divide the number of rigged ones by the total and you have your ratio - of course, to do this correctly one would need a flawless algorithm for objectively identifying rigged-ness, but most people would balk at that so they use heuristics or subjective algorithms that are claimed/implied to be objective.
> Are you staying that 1 in every 10 thousand drugs is going to erroneously pass a clinical trial - because what? The system chose to rig it in that particular drugs favour?
No, I am simply saying that if it is in fact rigged, then it is rigged.
EDIT: actually, this is technically incorrect - in my previous comment, I made no assertions, but rather asked two questions about your "facts" (which you didn't answer, for some reason I imagine). EDIT 2: I was wrong again! You are not the original poster...it is /u/TheTrueLordHumungous who has yet to answer. (Man, this is a lot more complicated than it seems.)
> That doesn't make much sense.
Well, one way it could "make sense" is that if people with decision making power have financial or ~personal interests in decisions.
> It's much more likely that in this proposed scenario the drug would be erroneously approved due to the actions of a single, or a few corrupt individuals....
"likely" is a heuristic prediction with an unknown truth value - I prefer to think tautologically: the level of rigged-ness of a system is equal to the level to which the system is rigged - this is better because it cannot possibly be incorrect.
> ...which does not represent the system.
Is this to say that there are zero corrupt individuals in the system?
TheTrueLordHumungous t1_irfce1o wrote
> who > has yet to > answer.
Calm down champ, I have a life.
iiioiia t1_irfd9cr wrote
> Calm down
?
CatJamarchist t1_irfkksq wrote
>Imagine a system...
Yeah I get what you're doing here - but you're reducing the 'rigging' down to smaller active chunks that are not necessarily representative of the system. These chunks are far more dependent on personal corruption than systemic 'rigging'. A 'rigged' system implies that the system is specifically set up in a way to produce erroneous results. A small team or department producing erroneous results for personal profit motives, is quite a bit different then systemic rigging - primarily because the system would want it try remove the offending people, because the system itself does not approve of 'rigging'. And we don't have to imagine a system either - there are lots of drug regulatory agencies, from the FDA to Heath Canada, to the EMA that we can examine to assess this rigging claim.
>I am simply saying that if it is in fact rigged, then it is rigged.
I literally don't know what you mean by 'rigged' in this context. Do you know how complicated the data production and regulatory requirements are to pass something like FDA clearance? Because I do, it just so happens to be a large part of my area of expertise. Just saying that 'the approval of drug X was rigged' is an incredibly vauge statement. There's a thousand different things that a company must produce and provide to a regulatory agency like the FDA to be verified prior to drug approval - there's many ways that companies can 'fudge' or 'massage' data to get it to say what the company wants prior to FDA submission.
>the level of rigged-ness of a system is equal to the level to which the system is rigged - this is better because it cannot possibly be incorrect.
Sure it can. You have to be very clear of what is 'rigging' and what is not 'rigging' - you have to define your terms of they're to be 'correct' or applicable.
Edit: furthermore, 'rigging' implies intentionality behind the decision - which is an accustaion that requires evidence. Just becuase the FDA approves a drug that otherwise wouldn't/shouldn't have been approved is not evidence of rigging, it could be, for exmaple, a mistake, or there may be other confounding variables.
>Is this to say that there are zero corrupt individuals in the system?
Of course not - I'm saying that there's a dramatic difference between Bob the quality control officer at the FDA allowing a drug to pass some quality parameter when company X fudged a data set error rate from 12% to 9%, passing the 10% error threshold set by the FDA, because Bob is friends with Tim, a designer at company X
And systemic rigging that specifically allows for certain companies or individuals to skate by regulatory constrains without question becuase the regulatory agency has some special interest in that company.
Just becuase there are individual corrupt actors acting within a system does not mean that the system is systemically rigged - it's not designed to be rigged. Especially when, if the system was aware of the individual corruption, it would very likely act to expunge that corruption.
iiioiia t1_irfp55i wrote
> Yeah I get what you're doing here....
To some degree ("get" is not a binary).
> ...but you're reducing the 'rigging' down to smaller active chunks that are not necessarily representative of the system.
Correct - do you "get" why I am doing this?
> These chunks are far more dependent on personal corruption than systemic 'rigging'.
A reasonable speculation by common standards, although it is framed as (and perhaps even perceived as) a false dichotomy, so perhaps not likely to be necessarily correct.
> A 'rigged' system implies that the system is specifically set up in a way to produce erroneous results.
Very true! We could choose a different word if you'd like, but I will apply the same strict epistemology to that.
> A small team or department producing erroneous results for personal profit motives, is quite a bit different then systemic rigging - primarily because the system would want it try remove the offending people, because the system itself does not approve of 'rigging'.
Do you have knowledge of what is actually going on, or are you speculating? "does not 'approve of'" is a conveniently slippery/subjective way to consider it.
> And we don't have to imagine a system either...
It is not technically necessary, but to get to the level of detail you are making assertions about, imagination is necessary.
> ...there are lots of drug regulatory agencies, from the FDA to Heath Canada, to the EMA that we can examine to assess this rigging claim.
And the quality of such examinations is equal to the quality of the examinations, which is unknown to you and me (which is where imagination makes its appearance).
> I literally don't know what you mean by 'rigged' in this context.
That's the beauty about humans - we do not use precise definitions for words - not only do we not, people are generally severely opposed to them. I prefer them, so if you'd like to decide upon a definition together, I would be game.
> Do you know how complicated the data production and regulatory requirements are to pass something like FDA clearance? Because I do....
What definition are you using for "know" here?
> Just saying that 'the approval of drug X was rigged' is an incredibly vauge statement.
Correct - one among many vague/ambiguous/subjective statements involved in this conversation.
> There's a thousand different things that a company must produce and provide to a regulatory agency like the FDA to be verified prior to drug approval - there's many ways that companies can 'fudge' or 'massage' data to get it to say what the company wants prior to FDA submission.
Agree! This, and many other things.
>> the level of rigged-ness of a system is equal to the level to which the system is rigged - this is better because it cannot possibly be incorrect.
> Sure it can. You have to be very clear of what is 'rigging' and what is not 'rigging' - you have to define your terms of they're to be 'correct' or applicable.
"Rigging" is largely subjective. In addition to this, you also have a measurement problem, and and an epistemology problem (like: unknown unknowns), and a consciousness problem.
> Edit: furthermore, 'rigging' implies intentionality behind the decision - which is an accustaion that requires evidence.
Should require evidence...and this applies to all the claims you made here today. Lucky for you, presenting (epistemically sound and logically conclusive) evidence for claims on the internet is not only not required, it is almost never done!
> Just becuase the FDA approves a drug that otherwise wouldn't/shouldn't have been approved is not evidence of rigging, it could be, for exmaple, a mistake, or there may be other confounding variables.
Correct - it is kind of like the difference between lying and speaking untruthfully.
>>> It's much more likely that in this proposed scenario the drug would be erroneously approved due to the actions of a single, or a few corrupt individuals - which does not represent the system.
>> Is this to say that there are zero corrupt individuals in the system?
> Of course not - I'm saying that there's a dramatic difference between Bob the quality control officer at the FDA allowing a drug to pass some quality parameter when company X fudged a data set error rate from 12% to 9%, passing the 10% error threshold set by the FDA, because Bob is friends with Tim, a designer at company X
But, if there are in fact corrupt individuals within the system, would saying that the system is partially corrupt not actually be a more accurate representation than saying it is not corrupted? (Replace "corrupt" with "imperfect" if you prefer comprehensiveness as I do).
> And systemic rigging that specifically allows for certain companies or individuals to skate by regulatory constrains without question becuase the regulatory agency has some special interest in that company.
I wonder if this has ever happened, even once. 🤔
> Just becuase there are individual corrupt actors acting within a system does not mean that the system is systemically rigged...
Would you mind pasting in a pseudocode representation of your actual cognitive implementation of isRigged()? I am interested to see the variables and logic (the general form, and if you are using binary or ternary) you are using.
> ...it's not designed to be rigged.
This has no bearing on whether it is actually rigged (but it may have bearing on perceptions of it).
> Especially when, if the system was aware of the individual corruption, it would very likely act to expunge that corruption.
Actually, it would likely not (note: I literally just made that up - when in Rome, act like a Roman and all that).
CatJamarchist t1_irfy8dy wrote
Yeah so your response just makes me think you don't really know or understand how regulatory agencies are set up
>Correct - do you "get" why I am doing this?
Yes, and I think your conclusion is wrong.
>reasonable speculation
It's not just speculation - these agencies are specially set up in such a way to produce multiple independent verification steps. The approval process is not linear.
>Do you have knowledge of what is actually going on, or are you speculating?
I have specific knowledge - I directly produce, assess and report data that is to be submitted to the FDA, and I read and respond to the replies the FDA provides to the data I submit
>"does not 'approve of'" is a conveniently...
I mean that it's quite literally illegal. People end up in jail for corrupting these processes. And there are many hurdles set up in these institutions to catch erroneous results.
>> And we don't have to imagine a system either...
>It is not technically necessary, but to get to the level of detail you are making assertions about, imagination is necessary.
Not really.. your imagined scenario isn't all that applicable, because it doesn't represent the actual set up of these agencies well.
>>that we can examine to assess this rigging claim.
>And the quality of such examinations is equal to the quality of the examinations, which is unknown to you and me
This is not unknown to me. I'm quite familiar with the regulatory set up, and quality control of all three of the agencies noted.
>That's the beauty about humans - we do not use precise definitions for words
In science, precise definitions are what it's all about - so you should be careful accusing a highly precise, well defined and regulated system with imprecise language.
>so if you'd like to decide upon a definition together, I would be game.
You're mostly just talking about corruption from what I can tell.
For exmaple, a system is rigged when the results are pre-determined - a rigged voting machine is when the machine is programmed to record a vote for candidate X, even when a ballot is submitted with candidate W, Y or Z selected.
A system is corrupt when the results are changed after the fact to reflect a more desired outcome. A corrupt voting system is when the machine accurately records the ballot results, and then someone goes in after the fact to change the results to suit their purposes.
A rigged system can not produce good data - it's designed to produce data of a specific nature.
A corrupt system can produce good data, that data may then be corrupted after the fact for some specific purpose.
>What definition are you using for "know" here?
Not sure what you mean - you quoted a section where I'm asking you if you 'know' about the structure of regulatory agencies - in asking if you're aware of how they're set up, organized and how they assess information.
If you're asking about the agency 'knowing' about a corrupt individual - I'm talking about 'instututional awareness' which is essentially enough people in positions of influce who are aware of the situation and can act on it.
>you also have a measurement problem, and and an epistemology problem
... Why? The agencies and people who staff them are well-aware if these hurdles, and things are set up in such away to avoid these issues as much as possible.
>Correct - it is kind of like the difference between lying and speaking untruthfully.
No... Actually there can be very sound and well founded reasons why an agency may approve the use of a specific drug - even if that drug has not cleared all of the traditionally required hurdles. It happens all the time, there's an entire 'emergncy use' regulatory system to address this.
>would saying that the system is partially corrupt not actually be a more accurate representation than saying it is not corrupted?
Sure - it's much more accurate to describe this stuff in terms of %corruption rather than %rigged, IMO at least.
>I wonder if this has ever happened, even once. 🤔
Again, corruption =/= rigging
>Would you mind pasting in a pseudocode representation of your actual cognitive implementation of isRigged()?
No. I'm not a programmer or a philosopher, I don't work with absolutes.
>This has no bearing on whether it is actually rigged
It absolutely does - see the example with voting machines above.
>Actually, it would likely not (note: I literally just made that up
Yeah you're just wrong here. These agencies have incentive structures to correct themselves, they're not corporations.
iiioiia t1_irg0bv8 wrote
> Yeah so your response just makes me think you don't really know or understand how regulatory agencies are set up
Do you realize I covered this already, in a way that does not require me to have in-depth knowledge of how regulatory agencies are set up (something that you may have "Expert" knowledge of, but not comprehensive Knowledge (JTB) of)?
>> Correct - do you "get" why I am doing this? > > > > Yes, and I think your conclusion is wrong.
Can you tell me why I am doing this?
CatJamarchist t1_irg4v7j wrote
>Do you realize I covered this already,
You did? Where?
>in a way that does not require me to have in-depth knowledge of how regulatory agencies are set up
Why do you think this? If your assumptions about how the regulation is enforced is wrong, why do you think you'll be able to accurately assess how they perform, and whether that performance is 'rigged' or not?
>but not comprehensive Knowledge
Obviously I'd argue that I do have a comprehensive knowledge, becauae it's my job to have comprehensive knowledge.
>Can you tell me why I am doing this?
As far as I can tell - to explain how if, for example, in an agency with 10 departments, 1 of those departments is 'rigged' the agency is therefore 10% rigged. And so when asked the question "is the agency rigged" and looking for a binary yes/no answer. The answer is 'Yes - the agency is 'rigged'' - becuase 10% is greater than 0%.
As I explained before, I think 'rigged' is used poorly here becuase it implies a structure that pre-determines results, instead of results being corrupted after the fact. The entire set up of a regulatory agency is to specifically avoid pre-determining results.
iiioiia t1_irj4iv8 wrote
>> Do you realize I covered this already, > > > > You did? Where?
Here: > > > These chunks are far more dependent on personal corruption than systemic 'rigging'. > > A reasonable speculation by common standards, although it is framed as (and perhaps even perceived as) a false dichotomy, so perhaps not likely to be necessarily correct. > > > A 'rigged' system implies that the system is specifically set up in a way to produce erroneous results. > > Very true! We could choose a different word if you'd like, but I will apply the same strict epistemology to that. > > > A small team or department producing erroneous results for personal profit motives, is quite a bit different then systemic rigging - primarily because the system would want it try remove the offending people, because the system itself does not approve of 'rigging'. > > Do you have knowledge of what is actually going on, or are you speculating? "does not 'approve of'" is a conveniently slippery/subjective way to consider it. > > > And we don't have to imagine a system either... > > It is not technically necessary, but to get to the level of detail you are making assertions about, imagination is necessary. > > > ...there are lots of drug regulatory agencies, from the FDA to Heath Canada, to the EMA that we can examine to assess this rigging claim. > > And the quality of such examinations is equal to the quality of the examinations, which is unknown to you and me (which is where imagination makes its appearance).
You are asserting that you posses comprehensive, fine-grained knowledge of what happens across the entire spectrum of scientific activities. I am talking about the entirety of the practice of science, you are talking about abstract definitions and intentions.
Actual science deals with accuracy and precision, and I am regularly told that scientists are the experts at this sort of thinking. I would like to see a demonstration of that expertise.
>> in a way that does not require me to have in-depth knowledge of how regulatory agencies are set up
> Why do you think this?
Logic, epistemology, abstraction, decomposition, knowledge of psychology & consciousness, etc.
> If your assumptions about how the regulation is enforced is wrong....
What assumption are you referring to here? Are you sure you aren't referring to your assumption about my (supposed) assumption?
Let's test the quality of your observational abilities: quote the text containing the assumption you are referring to.
> ...why do you think you'll be able to accurately assess how they perform, and whether that performance is 'rigged' or not?
I have made no claim that I am able to accurately assess how they perform - you on the other hand, have, but you seem oddly treluctant to explain how it is you know (as opposed to believe) that your assessments are accurate, in fact.
>>>>...but you're reducing the 'rigging' down to smaller active chunks that are not necessarily representative of the system.
>>> Correct - do you "get" why I am doing this?
>> Can you tell me why I am doing this?
> As far as I can tell...
Uh oh! Do you see your error?
> ...to explain how if, for example, in an agency with 10 departments, 1 of those departments is 'rigged' the agency is therefore 10% rigged.
Note that I also said: "Imagine a system composed of X departments or modules - simply divide the number of rigged ones by the total and you have your ratio - of course, to do this correctly one would need a flawless algorithm for objectively identifying rigged-ness, but most people would balk at that so they use heuristics or subjective algorithms that are claimed/implied to be objective."
> And so when asked the question "is the agency rigged" and looking for a binary yes/no answer.
If you are thinking in binary, that is part of your problem. I am certainly not looking for a binary answer - in fact, a non-binary answer is what I am curious whether you can generate!
> The answer is 'Yes - the agency is 'rigged'' - becuase 10% is greater than 0%.
See " Note that I also said..." above.
> As I explained before, I think 'rigged' is used poorly here....
I noted some issues with the classificaion....in fact, that is a fundamental component of my point!
>>>... becuase it implies a structure that pre-determines results, instead of results being corrupted after the fact.
That is only one possibility, there are many others. Malice is not even necessary.
> The entire set up of a regulatory agency is to specifically avoid pre-determining results.
Agreed, and the degree to which they are successful at it is equal to the degree that they are successful - you are expressing your opinion on the matter, I am interested in whether you can realize and acknowledge that this is what is happening here.
FNLN_taken t1_irget9c wrote
It's a play on a rotten apple spoils the bunch. If 1 trial out of 10000 gets an automatic pass, then the system is rigged, that sort of thing.
The problem here is what "being rigged" means. It's not enough to have a flaw in the system, the system must be intentionally designed to give unequal outcomes.
So unless I am given further proof that the trial system was designed such that big pharma can bypass it at a cost, I am saying that it isnt rigged.
CatJamarchist t1_irgg3co wrote
>So unless I am given further proof that the trial system was designed such that big pharma can bypass it at a cost, I am saying that it isnt rigged. [emph. mine]
Yup - exactly my point.
We get into that a little bit in that longer reply thread. It's an especially prevalent concern in drug regulation, becuase in the courts, one bad decision can produce a 'defective product' - but with pharmaceuticals, there's so many layers of review, and different types of review to clear before the product is able to be commercialized.
TheTrueLordHumungous t1_irfc951 wrote
> > a) if .01% of a system is genuinely rigged, is this statement as a binary True or False: "The system is rigged."
Its false, the tiny minority does not define the overwhelming majority.
> b) if two people answer differently, is one of them correct and the other incorrect, objectively and necessarily?
Yes, one of them is correct and one is incorrect.
ApprehensiveTry5660 t1_irfn8fv wrote
By your standards, are pride bars not pride bars if hetero individuals (who represent a much larger portion of the population already) frequent them at a high enough rate to be the majority?
A system can be defined just as much by a featured minority. A system that allows even 1/100 drugs to make it through erroneously because you bribed the right combination of senators and researchers seems rather fair to label rigged. Sure, there’s a functioning system along side of it, but there exists a mechanism for avoiding its rigors and it has been exploited rather openly and documented in court cases with opioids most famously.
TheTrueLordHumungous t1_irgg8ed wrote
> there exists a mechanism for avoiding its rigors and it has been exploited rather openly and documented in court cases with opioids most famously
How were the clinical trials for opioid pain killers exploited? Are opioid pain killers not effective for reducing pain?
ApprehensiveTry5660 t1_irhsg56 wrote
They obfuscated the risk of addiction throughout the 90’s. Medical literature describes the tolerance to addiction cycle in these drugs as early as the 50’s, it isn’t like it was unknown. When faced with the sharp rise in Opioid deaths post 2000 they convened a panel of experts in 2002, early enough to reign in the off label prescriptions, the panel of 10 experts they brought in had 8 members with significant financial ties to Purdue Pharmaceutical. It wouldn’t be until 2013 before any serious steps were taken, at which point there were enough pills on the market to give every adult in the United States a full bottle.
They were able to prescribe off-label, over produce, and flood both forward facing and black markets for over a decade before any meaningful action was taken. Yes, they absolutely work. They were just way more addictive than the FDA was willing to regulate, and often even recognize.
iiioiia t1_irfdlqx wrote
>> a) if .01% of a system is genuinely rigged, is this statement as a binary True or False: "The system is rigged." > > > > Its false, the tiny minority does not define the overwhelming majority.
If you bought a product that says "Pure Product A" on the label, but it is not in fact composed of 100% Product A but instead also contains .01% of a carcinogenic substance, would you consider the label to be objectively accurate (aka: True):
a) considering the "fact" that the tiny minority does not define the overwhelming majority?
b) considering that "the tiny minority does not define the overwhelming majority" may not actually be factual?
TheTrueLordHumungous t1_irgfvqz wrote
> would you consider the label to be objectively accurate (aka: True):
Yes I would consider the label objectively true assuming it fell within the bounds of some purity standard.
iiioiia t1_irizc8w wrote
>Yes I would consider the label objectively true assuming it fell within the bounds of some purity standard.
The purity standard is what was stated on the label: 100%.
VitriolicViolet t1_irgmgcl wrote
so in other words you might.
the fact you had to qualify it means you were wrong.
TheTrueLordHumungous t1_irgmrxz wrote
I don’t understand the point of this pedantic argument.
iiioiia t1_irizgjb wrote
They are useful for identifying the limits of instances of human consciousness, at least. With an adequate sample size, it can also be used to develop an algorithm for how the human mind will behave when it is put into certain situations, what forms of rhetoric and memes it will grasp for when it finds the ground it was standing on no longer (or doesn't actually) exists, etc.
TMax01 t1_irfy378 wrote
a) False
b) yes
iiioiia t1_irg0t8g wrote
> a) False
Can you show a pseudo-code representation of the logic you would use in isSystemRigged() to generate False for the proposition?
> b) yes
If someone disagrees with you, would you be able to demonstrate that you are necessarily correct, and successfully defend that demonstration from valid logical and epistemic critique?
--
And I will re-use this:
If you bought a product that says "Pure Product A" on the label, but it is not in fact composed of 100% Product A but instead also contains .01% of a carcinogenic substance, would you consider the label to be objectively accurate (aka: True)?
TMax01 t1_irg51a0 wrote
>Can you show a pseudo-code representation of the logic you would use in isSystemRigged() to generate False for the proposition?
You are suggesting that whether something is true or false is the same as whether it can be shown to be true or false with pseudo-code. This is a false premise.
The only way your ".01% rigged" system would be "a rigged system" isn't that .01% of the system were a necessary and uncollectable operation component of 100% of the output of the system. Systems are not black boxes. A system doesn't have to be 100% reliable or uncorrupted to be reliable and uncorrupted. This isn't a matter simple enough for the literally braindead logic of pseudo-code or even more braindead real code. It requires reasoning, intelligence, and the ability to grasp the meaning (not merely a single definition) of words.
>f someone disagrees with you, would you be able to demonstrate that you are necessarily correct
Yes, but I would be unable to force them to admit this, or understand it, or even recognize it.
>If you bought a product that says "Pure Product A" on the label, but it is not in fact composed of 100% Product A but instead also contains .01% of a carcinogenic substance, would you consider the label to be objectively accurate (aka: True)?
You have begun a long and difficult journey toward understanding the difference between a system and a product. Best of luck; let me know if there is anything I can do to help.
iiioiia t1_irj5efc wrote
> You are suggesting that whether something is true or false is the same as whether it can be shown to be true or false with pseudo-code.
Incorrect - you are perceiving/interpreting that I am doing that. Please interpret my text literally, with a calm mind.
> This is a false premise.
Then you should abandon it. > > > > The only way your ".01% rigged" system would be "a rigged system" isn't that .01% of the system were a necessary and uncollectable operation component of 100% of the output of the system.
You do not actually possess knowledge of all ways in which a system could be rigged. You are speculating, necessarily.
> Systems are not black boxes.
They are to some degree, in that you do not possess omniscient knowledge of what is going on everywhere, you only possess belief that you possess this knowledge.
> A system doesn't have to be 100% reliable or uncorrupted to be reliable and uncorrupted.
Agree, but a system does have to be 100% reliable and uncorrupted to be 100% reliable and uncorrupted (which is what is being discussed here). Please do not move the goalposts.
> This isn't a matter simple enough for the literally braindead logic of pseudo-code....
The "braindeadedness" of the logic of pseudo-code is a function of the pseudo-code itself, and for us to get some insight into that under these circumstances, it would require that you post a representation of it. I can imagine that this is something you would rather not reveal, so if you do not want to reveal it, I understand.
> It requires reasoning, intelligence, and the ability to grasp the meaning (not merely a single definition) of words.
Agree!! So then, please: provide us insight into the inner workings of your mind, if you have the nerve.
TMax01 t1_irjtw31 wrote
>Incorrect - you are perceiving/interpreting that I am doing that. Please interpret my text literally, with a calm mind.
You are mistaken in believing (I cannot even abide by describing it as percieving/interpreting, it is more akin to wishing or hoping) that I have ever done anything other than interpret your text in any other way.
>Then you should abandon it.
I am not the one professing the false premise. I find it almost too hard to believe you aren't aware you failed to interpret which premise I was referencing. To clarify, it was your premise (unstated, but unavoidable, and by no means rebutted by your accusatory dismissal and semantic gamesmanship) that whether something is true is identical to whether it can be presented as pseudo-code (and, further, that whether you are convinced to believe it, by that effort or any other, is identical to whether it has been objectively (logically) proven).
>You do not actually possess knowledge of all ways in which a system could be rigged.
I do not need that for my position to be sound. You are the one that quantified the "rigging". I merely took your premise to be valid, and explained why it does not support the conclusion you expected it to.
>You are speculating, necessarily.
Indeed, necessarily so: as I seem to constantly have to remind you, all reasoning is speculation. Even the kind that relies on pseudo-code. But, in that way, you are merely speculating (but unnecessarily) that I am speculating, and have not provided any reason to believe my speculation is inaccurate even if your speculation is accurate. When will you abandon these semantic games, iiioiia? You just keep frustrating yourself more and more with every effort, by failing to even supply a coherent disputation of my conjectures.
>They are to some degree,
LOL.
>in that you do not possess omniscient knowledge of what is going on everywhere,
Examining a system doesn't require knowledge of what is going on "everywhere", only within the system. By suggesting that some putative systems are black boxes (but providing no reasoning or analysis to allow us to identify which ones are) you must necessarily be insinuating that the particular (though hypothetic) system being considered is a black box, or you are just babbling. Absolute knowledge of what is going on within the system could be assumed to be essential, yes, but by quantifying the proportion of 'rigging' so precisely (and, I might suggest, minutely) you have forced the idea that such knowledge is available as part of your premise. I simply took you at your word, which is to say, I interpreted your text literally and with a calm mind.
>Agree, but a system does have to be 100% reliable and uncorrupted to be 100% reliable and uncorrupted (which is what is being discussed here). Please do not move the goalposts.
I dispute your idealistic notion, with no movement of any imaginary goalposts necessary. Your assumption that any system can ever or must be 100% reliable is... braindead. A characteristic which is acceptable in pseudo-code, but not actual reasoning.
>Agree!! So then, please: provide us insight into the inner workings of your mind, if you have the nerve.
I do so with every word, despite your increasingly desperate contentions to the contrary. And you, also, like it or not, do the same: with every word you post, you reveal how braindead your reasoning is. It's nothing to be ashamed of; wishing that your thoughts had the precision and consistency of logic, pseudo-code, and computation is endemic in these postmodern times. But it is still an error, and both your reasoning and your attitude would be improved by abandoning it, as it is a vain hope and a dead end, philosophically speaking.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
iiioiia t1_irjvrei wrote
>>>> Can you show a pseudo-code representation of the logic you would use in isSystemRigged() to generate False for the proposition?
>>> You are suggesting that whether something is true or false is the same as whether it can be shown to be true or false with pseudo-code. This is a false premise.
>> Incorrect - you are perceiving/interpreting that I am doing that. Please interpret my text literally, with a calm mind.
> You are mistaken in believing (I cannot even abide by describing it as percieving/interpreting, it is more akin to wishing or hoping) that I have ever done anything other than interpret your text in any other way [than literally].
Ok then: please point out the portion of my text where I explicitly make the claim you say I have.
TMax01 t1_irjy7hm wrote
That your claim is implicit (but clearly indicated by your question and your position, as well as your lack of any other reasoning related to the issue, and confirmed by your subsequent argumentation) does not provide the effortless deniability that this was your premise which you apparently wish it did. It continues to vex you that I am capable of ascertaining your thinking based on your statements (including your queries and requests), but what else could be the purpose of your statements (etc) other than to present your thinking? You seem to be highly focused on either claiming or suggesting that I could not be accurately interpreting your words, but the fact that you don't ever bother to provide any more accurate interpretation (instead merely insisting that my interpretation is inaccurate without justifying your insistence beyond unsubstantiated denials bordering on indignation) actually ratifies my perceptions about your meaning and your beliefs, rather than contradicting them.
iiioiia t1_irk057i wrote
>That your claim is implicit..
You claimed to be interpreting it literally.
Gotcha!! 😁
I must say: for some reason I particularly enjoying arguing with you, although I'm not sure why.
>but what else could be the purpose of your statements (etc) other than to present your thinking?
This is actually an excellent question. For the answer, you can simply read my mind.
TMax01 t1_irk3fry wrote
>You claimed to be interpreting it literally.
I am. Your implicit contention is made obvious by a literal interpretation of your language. It seems that you expect my interpretation to be naive, rather than merely literal; in presuming you were not speaking figuratively, I read your text literally.
>Gotcha!! 😁
You have revealed the fact, as I had already surmised, that you are interested in semantic games (and efforts at one-upsmanship amounting to desperate childishness) rather than intelligent discussion. Oops.
>This is actually an excellent question. For the answer, you can simply read my mind.
As always, I don't need to do so. All I need do is read your words, and the reason you are unable to answer the question is made obvious. I will refer you to my prior point, as regards your involuntary confession about the premise of your argumentation.
iiioiia t1_irk6ftf wrote
This is disappointing.
avengerintraining t1_iridue6 wrote
a) Rigged isn’t measured in percentages.
b) They can both be ignored because they missed the first point and started arguing.
iiioiia t1_iriyzyw wrote
>a) Rigged isn’t measured in percentages.
Is it measured in any units? And if it is not being measured, does that not leave only the imagination (in this particular scenario)?
>b) They can both be ignored because they missed the first point and started arguing.
Ignoring something is always an option, but it doesn't cause it to go away. It can certainly make it seem like it has gone away though, and you know what they say: Perception is Reality.
DLBaker t1_irhtyuq wrote
20 Million is a drop in the bucket in an industry that moves billions.
ribnag t1_irie0e3 wrote
Respectfully, this isn't about pharma research or corporate-academic misconduct, that's just the backdrop for the real discussion. The real issue being described can best be summed up as (IMO):
Why is plagiarism bad?
If your answer is epistemological, great work, you "get" it (and, sadly, most likely didn't attend public school in the US). It matters how we know X so we can challenge the underlying assumptions when appropriate.
If your answer involves getting or stealing "credit", though - That's the heart of what this essay is condemning. Why should anyone feel a sense of ownership over "the truth"? And why should their reputation be harmed if they perform an honest experiment whose findings are later refuted? Yet, you don't need to look hard to find countless rants about positive result bias in scientific research; everyone knows it's a serious problem, but everyone also needs to eat, while operating under a system that only rewards successes.
PepperMill_NA t1_irfq59e wrote
Where did you read that the problem is a "few anecdotes of dangerous drugs?" I could not find that and find it misleading about the intent of the article.
microli t1_irhmaf3 wrote
After the prescription opioid crisis, I’m surprised that a comment like this would get upvotes. Are you philosophy guys not following the news or something?
AllanfromWales1 t1_iremfa7 wrote
Popper's work has been around, and mainstream in the philosophy of science, almost as long as clinical corruption. If it's not made a difference by now, it's asking a lot to expect it to do so now.
MourningDark t1_irexu7o wrote
Pessimism roams everything on Reddit. We should be glad that there are people out there who don't live life by the subliminal dictates of redditors.
Eedat t1_irf4utu wrote
Nature has a bit of corruption at every level and humans are no different. Creating a system free of any corrupting at all is impossible. The goal is to create a system that limits it and has the capability to shoulder the weight of what does slip though
Leemour t1_irfky4p wrote
That requires massive amounts of energy and effort though. What you're talking about is entropy mitigation and in any system, working against entropy is energy intensive, so as long as we have a scarcity economy, we should think carefully about what and where we stop this "corruption" as you call it, because it could take up all our resources wastefully if we pick an energy hungry system to keep it from equilibrium.
LiamTheHuman t1_irft1cm wrote
So I think I understand what you are saying but maybe I'm missing something. Wouldn't the overgrowth of the corruption be just as or more dangerous than the risk of using excess resources to stop it? Like isn't the outcome we are all doomed either way?
Leemour t1_irfwv4y wrote
They're both scenarios where we push things to an extreme. As I see it (from a kind of Naturalist+Existentialist-I-Guess perspective based on my reading of Schrödinger's lectures on thermodynamics and more contemporary researchers who have posed existentialist questions) all things have this entropy nature in them, a pull towards disorder (don't read this as chaos), variation and ultimately a sort of dispersion. If we do nothing, everything will crumble, if we do everything we can to stop one thing from crumbling, then everything else will crumble faster: the key is to find the right amount of "push back" needed for the right things, the aim for the optimal instead of the ideal.
So any system we create will need reforms and changes, but there is no formula to "when", "how often" and "how extensively", besides it's something that a different generation needs to deal with anyway and we cannot predict what paradigms and context will be relevant in the future. Providing a framework for the means to make changes and giving a rational permission for occasional radicalism is how systems can overall preserve its function.
The way this relates to the OP is that since we have unprecedented, massive influx of new research publications, there is a lot that just goes kind of unchallenged, this is tied in with entropy, which gets "stronger" with "bigger numbers", so we can work against this by verifying the research in some way, but just how much resources put into this verification is worth when research is just getting more and more expensive? Currently the main form of this is by doing metastudies, which collect a bunch of relevant studies, critically studies their methods, results, impact on other researches, etc. to determine whether this was in some form verified, falsified or is suspiciously lacking. It is essentially doing science on science, and in many fields it seems to work just fine, though typically the criticism is that there isn't enough people doing this with enough resources, which I agree with, but I'd also add, that metastudies are hard to do because of the highly critical focus of it.
Overall, this OP is a bit dramatic, there is no real crisis, in the general scientific community, so no, scientists are not shacks (yet), but in some fields this has grown out of proportion (psychology and medicine namely) where a bit of change is needed or more frequent/sizable metastudies.
LiamTheHuman t1_irg01ms wrote
isn't the fact the the validity of recent papers is going down an indication that our balance of control over the entropy in the system is off? Like wouldn't the ideal state be that we have a growing system that maintains an equilibrium.
I suppose there could be an argument that the equilibrium point could be more permissive but if we think we are in a good state now or even that we are slightly in a bad state, isn't the only option to devote more resources to correct course?
I'm kind of just going where my mind takes me so take everything I said with a grain of salt
nicoco3890 t1_irg94th wrote
No. You are just flat out wrong here, you are using the term energy incorrectly, using both the colloquial meaning and physical meaning at the same time.
Entropy mitigation in a moral system is not an « energy intensive » process. No raw ressources are needed, no power consumed. No physical energy is needed nor wasted.
However, « mental energy », as ill defined as it is, is needed. But mental energy is not the correct term to use here either, but mental & moral fortitude is what you really mean.
This is fundamentally a cultural & psychological problem, not a ressources management problem. Ressource management may be one way to improve the problem, but it is not the solution, only an aspect of it.
Leemour t1_irgdcj9 wrote
I disagree, you need tangible resources to record, interpret and apply information. There is no process that perfectly and permanently records information, thus to just maintain fidelity, it requires analysis and re-recording of the information, but this assuming perfect formulation of information to begin with, which is also not the case. To deny this is unhelpful reductionism and culture is part of the problem, but by solving that the problem still stands.
nicoco3890 t1_irgm2ia wrote
I'm sorry, but you were the reductionist there. Objecting to the proposal of a system seeking to minimize corruption by stating it would be too ressource expensive, when in fact, in no way is the ressource cost a limiting or major factor here.
It is entirely possible for a society to exist without corruption without any records existing. It may be unrealistic in today's society, it does not mean it is impossible. As I said, ressource management is merely an aspect of the solution, better record-keeping is a plus, but they can always be falsified, numbers fudged, accounting mistakes made.
As for the example of corruption not existing despite any records keeping, you just have to think about a small hunter-gatherer community. What would corruption looks like in such a society? Assuming the existence of a patriarchal group with "traditionnal" hierarchy, an example of corruption would be a young hunter killing a prey, eating parts of the liver before bringing it back. This is corruption because the tribe leader would be the one to have first pick, and distribution rights over prized meat & offal. The youngin just bypassed that and declared that his arrow damaged the liver, hence why there is a part missing.
Corruption is a moral, conceptual problem, not a physical, material problem. It exists because there exist a predetermined code of conduct, rules to follow and social order, and that some people decide not to abide by it.
It is entirely a social problem, with ways to attempt to manage it that can manifest in the physical world, with records-keeping, but is not dependent on the existence of such records keeping, but purely on the moral fiber of the population.
If taking money from the coffers while you are in charge is the expected behavior in a society, can you really say you are being corrupt by doing it?
You can't just reduce corruption & fighting it to a material problem, when it is a much bigger problem of how human being acts in society & how this rewards him.
VitriolicViolet t1_irgn0hi wrote
lol right because our world gives 2 shits about resource efficiency, ah naivety is gold.
we couldnt careless about wasting resources, indeed our entire system is setup explicitly to waste resources accumulating capital.
'efficiency' as used by economists has never meant 'efficiency of resources distribution' it means 'efficiency of capital accumulation'.
in what possible way is burning 1000s of tons of food every year to maintain a floor price a efficient use of resources? it sure is an efficient way of generating 'value' but is one the most inefficient ways possible for handling food distribution.
our society has never cared about minimizing loss or waste, frankly its entirely fine with maximizing losses and waste if it makes private profit.
Vast-Material4857 t1_irg0ivs wrote
If you read Kuhn he says corruption is an inevitability, ownership or not.
AllanfromWales1 t1_irg24rs wrote
I read "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" 45 years ago but I don't remember it saying that. It certainly said that scientific progress is not as straightforward as Popper suggested, with competing paradigms not even agreeing on what counted as progress, but that's not the same as corruption. I'd more associate that with someone like Paul Feyerabend.
Vast-Material4857 t1_irgbl93 wrote
The enforcement of paradigms is corruption, especially in the crisis phase of science because at that point you're not "doing" science, you're regulating it.
AllanfromWales1 t1_irgc8ye wrote
Paradigms aren't enforced, they are simply belief-structures.
Vast-Material4857 t1_irgd6l8 wrote
You can't enforce belief structures?
AllanfromWales1 t1_irge4ko wrote
Kuhn doesn't suggest that this happens in practice. Whether it actually does is another issue.
Vast-Material4857 t1_irgfxcr wrote
It absolutely does. We pick and choose how we frame the problem and alienate people with fringe framing. During 'normal' science this is stabilizing but once it gets into crisis science it becomes regressive and you can't avoid that because we don't know what phase we're in until after the fact. This is fundamental.
AllanfromWales1 t1_irhpqxl wrote
I've not experienced that personally, but all I'm saying is that you can't take that from Kuhn or Popper unless they have written stuff subsequent to my study of the subject.
Vast-Material4857 t1_iriuegc wrote
Schrodinger's cat was a literal attempt to mock quantum physics. Germ theory was similarly ridiculed even despite 40 years amazing data. Ignaz Semmelweis dropped his mortality rate for mother's and children during childbirth by 90% by simply washing his hands, nobody listened to him for DECADES. The list goes on and on. This why Max Planck said, "Science moves at the rate of it's obituaries."
This ideological territorialism. This is a corruption of impartiality and you can't escape it more than science can escape being done by people.
AllanfromWales1 t1_irj6usf wrote
I think you need to actually read both Popper and particularly Kuhn. It's not corruption that it takes a lot to overthrow an established theory, it's pragmatic and human.
vrkas t1_irg6qkj wrote
There's no way to stop it in the current system we've got, and as mentioned the issue has spread from commercial labs to the university sector. For me it boils down to money. All my research funding is from governments, and they typically aren't interested in any sort of direct financial windfall. If I was privately funded by someone with an agenda, say proving that supersymmetry exists in my case, then I can see pressure for my results to point in that direction. There are very strong checks and balances which would stop that from happening in my case, but other fields of science have different standards of proof.
mechanab t1_irem5ru wrote
Old article, but is the author complaining about how clinical trials are done or the idea of intellectual property rights. Who knows, because the author doesn’t really get into the details of either. How is “knowledge” “owned”? Is he talking about parents? That is the opposite of owned knowledge, it requires disclosure of what would otherwise be kept secret. Corruption of clinical trials? Is that a common problem? If so how should it be addressed? The author is just going on some sort of rant.
TheRoadsMustRoll t1_irf8twp wrote
>How is “knowledge” “owned”? Is he talking about parents?
he's talking about private organizations doing research and then keeping the information to themselves because its their intellectual property (since they did the work.)
its a bit of a conundrum because private industry has a great deal of capital to expend on research but their motivation is profit: if they can't own their discoveries then they won't invest. but that means if they find a cure for a disease they can keep it to themselves which defeats the purpose of motivating their research.
DeliciousCanary4711 t1_irf5aq3 wrote
> Corruption of clinical trials? Is that a common problem?
LOL tell me you know nothing about the state of modern science...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
> If so how should it be addressed? The author is just going on some sort of rant.
Someone ia ranting without being at all informed all right...
acediac01 t1_irf7t4d wrote
I thought there was a follow up study on the "replication crisis" and when the follow up (people trying to replicate the studies) actually get in communication with the original study authors the replication failure rate went down to 10%. Still not great, but better.
From my pedestrian/bystander understanding, journals want the most succinct article to publish, so a lot of prerequisites or best practices that exist at one university or within one discipline are left out of the publication, with the understanding that they are known. When someone educated slightly differently follows up, they don't get the same result because, from the beginning, they didn't do the same experiment.
DeliciousCanary4711 t1_irf9csv wrote
> follow up study
Go find it. Use the internet.
> a lot of prerequisites or best practices that exist at one university or within one discipline are left out of the publication
So you think journals are omitting methodology to save on what, printing costs?
The crisis is systemic: researchers are forced to 'publish or perish' while those dying from little understood causes are blocked from accessing said knowledge... the whole thing is designed to enrich few at the cost of the many imo, not to accurately conduct scientific investigation and communicate findings for the benefit of humans and our habitat.
acediac01 t1_irff0sr wrote
Nah, I don't actually care. I grew up not trusting anyone or anything, I just know that the words replication crisis make for a great headline.
I don't disagree about the incentives for academic work being heavily perverted by the current climate, however I have yet to see anyone propose a fix that will actually be adopted by anyone but idealists. Just like open source software vs. M$ and Apple, you have true believers, and then people that are just there to make money. At the end of the day, eating is more important that holding to your ideals.
DeliciousCanary4711 t1_irgyd0j wrote
> eating is more important that holding to your ideals.
That is an extremely morally dubious claim.
Opioid overdoses are the #1 cause of death for adults 18-45 in usa... the Sacklers didn't make that happen without many accomplices with impressive science titles.
Wu-Tang_Hoplite t1_irf9ay2 wrote
You don’t replicate clinical trials…
Wordweaver- t1_irfdo59 wrote
You don't, others might.
Wu-Tang_Hoplite t1_irff5ca wrote
This paper does not discuss duplicating clinical trials. It would most likely be unethical to try to reproduce a clinical trial based on the adverse effects you uncover. If the first study is unclear you design a new trial but you don’t try to replicate it…
Wordweaver- t1_irfgalh wrote
It discusses using real-world data to replicate the findings of RCTs, not duplicate the clinical trial. If you want exact duplications, RCTs should be done in heterogenous populations to be generalizable and things that work for one population may well be duplicated later in a different population
Wu-Tang_Hoplite t1_irfio6x wrote
The paper is trying to provide support for a standard of enabling RWE to support RCT data in the FDA process which is a good thing. You don’t usually run RCTs in heterogeneous populations. You want a heterogeneous sampling of the population you are trying to treat, but depending on where you are on the world that changes ie There are ethnic and geographic differences in CYP enzymes that will change your study (if you are from a specific. Geographic/ethnic group you get 100 mg/kg if you are from group B you get 150 mg/kg). Clinical trials are designed around a specific question. Does my study meet my primary and secondary endpoints. If yes, then it supports approval for your drug. If no, then it discourages approval based on that study. Maybe you will need to do a different RCT. This is a different premise then, for example, research done in metal organic frameworks, providing support for a new battery material. This study contains the methods the authors used to create a new material, the experiment they did to test the energy storage capacity, and the result they obtained. This is the type of research it would be beneficial to reproduce.
Wordweaver- t1_irfismg wrote
Most of the replication crisis is from RCTs in social psych
Wu-Tang_Hoplite t1_irfja0p wrote
I see the issue here. Reproducing RCTs in psychology = good idea. Reproducing RCTs in medicine = more often than not unethical (because you could design a better trial based on the previous one).
DeliciousCanary4711 t1_irf9kc7 wrote
Sciece results can be replicated by definition.
Wu-Tang_Hoplite t1_irf9wry wrote
Yes but clinical trials are studies run on humans and the goal is not to reproduce the results. The goal is to power the study well enough to show that you meet your endpoints. I completely agree that there is a replication crisis in reproducing research in the literature but talking about this in the same breath as clinical trials displays a fundamental lack of understanding about the drug approval process.
DeliciousCanary4711 t1_irfcm0r wrote
Regardless of the purpose of a given study, if it isn't reproducible it isn't scientifically valid, full stop.
Wu-Tang_Hoplite t1_irffutd wrote
Yes. No one is discounting that. Science should be inherently reproducible. The point I’m trying to make is that bringing up clinical trials in the same context and the general reproducibility crisis in science is comparing apples to oranges. You don’t publish the results of a clinical trial so someone can try to reproduce the trial. You share the results so that the next trial done on the same patient population can be designed to yield an even better outcome and as part of the drug/device approval process. If you run a new clinical trial on the exact same drug but you change the recruitment sites to attempt to change the characteristics of the patient population you recruit you are no longer reproducing a study. You are running a new study.
DeliciousCanary4711 t1_irgz6oi wrote
> You share the results so that the next trial done on the same patient population can be designed to yield an even better outcome and as part of the drug/device approval process.
So what went wrong with this process re: oxycontin? Why was that drug approval process so flawed?
Wu-Tang_Hoplite t1_irhccmh wrote
I don’t know much about the clinical trials run in OxyContin, but why do you think that the trials were flawed?
DeliciousCanary4711 t1_irhdgdk wrote
Well the drug in question seems to have qualities that spawned a massive public health emergency, record settlements etc, if there is to be a discussion of a crisis in scientific credibility that seems like a reasonable starting point as OP points out. How does a defender of the pharma establishment explain the variance between trials vs real life outcomes? Gross incompetence seems unlikely?
Wu-Tang_Hoplite t1_irhegn1 wrote
Clinical trials assess the safety and tolerability of a drug in the patient population when dosed correctly. I don’t know off the top of my head what follow-up studies are required for the approval of an analgesic. From my understanding OxyContin is safe when used as intended. The marketing campaign to get doctors to over-prescribe it is a completely different process which would not even begin until after the drug is approved (has passed clinical trials). To expand on this a little there are plenty of drugs with addictive potential that are legal to use (I.e dextromethorphan and Xanax). Just because there are negative side effects like to a drug (like addiction) does not mean it’s development process was flawed. All drugs have side effects.
DeliciousCanary4711 t1_irhh103 wrote
You are shilling for an immoral nexus of pharm $, regulatory capture and corrupt science:
> FDA failure to obtain adequate evidence of effectiveness was not limited to oxycodone. Over the past 25 years, despite mounting evidence that a surge in opioid consumption was resulting in adverse public health consequences, the FDA continued to approve new opioid formulations for chronic pain based on efficacy trials utilizing a controversial methodology called enriched enrollment randomized withdrawal (EERW).26 Since its 2006 approval of oxymorphone, the FDA has relied on EERW as evidence of opioid efficacy for chronic pain.27 EERW trials differ from traditional double-blind, randomized, controlled studies. In an EERW trial, prior to randomization for a double-blind phase, all subjects are made physiologically dependent on the opioid in a 4- to 6-week open-label phase. Then only the patients who tolerated the opioid and found it helpful during the open-label phase are randomized to remain on the opioid or switch to a placebo. Critics of EERW have correctly described this methodology as “cooking the books” for 2 reasons.28 First, because only patients who tolerated the opioid and found it helpful are allowed to proceed to randomization, the study is not representative of the general population, and the results cannot be generalized to clinical practice. Second, because daily use of opioids causes physiological dependence, efficacy results are skewed in favor of the subjects who remain on the opioid. This is because opioid-dependent subjects who are switched to placebo experience opioid withdrawal symptoms, including increased sensitivity to pain. Moreover, switching opioid-dependent subjects to placebo renders the study not truly double-blind. The FDA’s decision to rely on EERW trial methodology is a consequence of the agency’s close ties to industry. In fact, the FDA’s decision to use EERW for analgesics was based on discussions at private meetings between FDA officials and pharmaceutical company executives hosted by an organization called Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT).29 Drug companies paid up to $35 000 each for the opportunity to attend IMMPACT meetings and interact with FDA staff.29 Yet, despite the uproar that followed public disclosure of the IMMPACT meetings, the FDA continues to rely on EERW trials as evidence that opioids are effective for chronic pain.
https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/how-fda-failures-contributed-opioid-crisis/2020-08
Wu-Tang_Hoplite t1_irhhqrl wrote
I qualified my statement that I was not familiar with these clinical trials so I don’t know why you think this is some sort of gotcha. I’m not advocating for the current mechanisms we used to fund science and develop new drugs. The entire process socializes the risks and privatizes the profits.
DeliciousCanary4711 t1_irhi1wk wrote
You said
> Just because there are negative side effects like to a drug (like addiction) does not mean it’s development process was flawed
Either the process is flawed, or killing a ton of people was the intention.
ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhok t1_irf69rz wrote
Who is ranting?
DeliciousCanary4711 t1_irf6v6i wrote
u/mechanab is ranting.
Leemour t1_irfkjgd wrote
Meta studies exist today as a means to mitigate the issue. Typically what gets into a meta study and is verified, then it gets further studied and researches build on those findings, but if it doesn't make into the study or serious faults are pointed out, then it is either ignored or someone tries to falsify/verify the claims of the original study.
This issue is being addressed; it's not a growing, awkward problem like climate change or overconsumption.
There is also an issue with resources. Just how much resources are we to waste just to verify the verification of a verification, etc. ? Some research is much more expensive than others, so we can't just have the same blanket standard for all.
It is a problem, but it is not like modern science is anywhere close to fraud; we just have an unprecedented wealth of new reports and too few people with not enough resources to verify each.
DeliciousCanary4711 t1_irh0urd wrote
> It is a problem, but it is not like modern science is anywhere close to fraud
Within certain fields ie psychology, the meta studies mentioned in OP are showing 50% non reproducibility. That is a major problem.
Think about it - was oxycontin nonaddictive? Do SSRIs work? Vioxx? Phen-Phen? Adderall?
There is a crisis ongoing.
Leemour t1_iri00z4 wrote
No, my man... meta studies are just doing their job in that case and are weeding out the nonsense from the good research.
DeliciousCanary4711 t1_iriwitk wrote
I thought peer review was supposed to weed out the nonsense, not a meta study decades after the subject causes a massive wave of fatalities?
Leemour t1_irix8bn wrote
No, peer review =/= metastudy =/= drug approval. These are different processes with different functions and responsibilities. Not to mention therapists don't rely on questionable research in psychology without informing their patients that they are taking part in a study or questionable method that has X% success rate with possible complications.
DeliciousCanary4711 t1_iriyfep wrote
>therapists don't rely on questionable research in psychology
Yes they do, that's the point - whole medical industries are based on fictions.
Leemour t1_iriywex wrote
Do you even understand what the article is saying? This has nothing to do with "whole medical industries are based on fictions" or the efficacy of antidepressants.
DeliciousCanary4711 t1_irizjok wrote
Yes I can read, can you?
> The chemical imbalance theory of depression is still put forward by professionals [17], and the serotonin theory, in particular, has formed the basis of a considerable research effort over the last few decades [14]. The general public widely believes that depression has been convincingly demonstrated to be the result of serotonin or other chemical abnormalities [15, 16], and this belief shapes how people understand their moods, leading to a pessimistic outlook on the outcome of depression and negative expectancies about the possibility of self-regulation of mood [64,65,66]. The idea that depression is the result of a chemical imbalance also influences decisions about whether to take or continue antidepressant medication and may discourage people from discontinuing treatment, potentially leading to lifelong dependence on these drugs [67, 68].
Leemour t1_irj0iuh wrote
I can't believe I have to point this out: what do you think professional means here? Researchers, therapists or both, what is the difference? In what world can the therapist force a patient off of a demonstrably effective antidepressant (despite the patients wishes!!!) when such comprehensive metastudy was lacking? General public view does not coincide with scientific consensus/discussion either, so again, what part of this is telling you it's a sham?
DeliciousCanary4711 t1_irj1qxi wrote
The 'scientific consensus' was and is wrong, people have been medicated with ineffective and dangerous drugs while effective treatment eg ketamine isn't being widely used for treatment. This didn't happen by accident.
Leemour t1_irj79dg wrote
That's not what the study you quoted says.
DeliciousCanary4711 t1_irjgecr wrote
Yes the last post was my original opinion backed by the study excerpt I helpfully posted for your education previous to that.
Welcome to philosophy.
Leemour t1_irjkqop wrote
It does not support your conclusions, that is the problem.
DeliciousCanary4711 t1_irjmnvf wrote
The whole serotonin theory of depression is false but the $20,000,000,000 SSRI industry marches on. It's a very clear case of corrupt science.
Worshiping science is unscientific and leads to immoral outcomes, you should stop doing that.
Leemour t1_irjpa50 wrote
Alright tinfoil hatter. Totally wasnt trying to tell you that you need to read carefully what researchers publish, that peer review is not the same thing as doing a meta study and all of this is separate from what the process of the medical community and drug administration selecting their treatment methods and drugs.
The meta study is major in the sense that it debunks seratonin theory altogether, but there were many psychologists and therapists who already knew that. Even the article points out that this myth was/is chiefly believed by the general public. Regardless of this, the drugs go through a drug trial, which is different from all of this; they worked for a certain amount of people, so it passed the test, maybe not for the reasons we understand, but if it works, then it works and despite this study its not wise to force these drugs off the shelf when they work in drug trials.
You, not understanding the nuance of these things only proves your ignorance. The hysteria is just cherry on top.
DeliciousCanary4711 t1_irk7oby wrote
> tinfoil
Solid argument. No you!
Leemour t1_irk9dtt wrote
2 words is all you could read... well done
DeliciousCanary4711 t1_irkfy4s wrote
You didn't present any arguments to respond to, just name calling.
Leemour t1_irkg9vh wrote
3rd time you've shown you don't actually read my posts, thanks for the waste of time.
DeliciousCanary4711 t1_irkpwim wrote
Try writing something interesting.
[deleted] t1_irf9p94 wrote
[deleted]
DeliciousCanary4711 t1_irfays6 wrote
> dangerous misinformation
Oh! Better alert the guardians!
> doing science, especially biological science, is very difficult to fully control
It wasn't brand-related enzymatic variance that caused oxycontin to be proclaimed non addictive. You're trying to obscure the argument with overtechnicality and moralistic finger wagging. How dare I criticise science? Bud, you're in the wrong sub.
[deleted] t1_irfcmm4 wrote
[deleted]
DeliciousCanary4711 t1_irfdyya wrote
> you’re directly trying to link “corruption” with the reproducibility crisis
Data that doesn't reflect objective reality is by definition corrupted, but yes of course human-related financial corruption is a major factor- from the clinic to the corpotate pharm boardroom. How could it possibly not be a factor, given human nature? What other explaination would you propose for the scientific vetting of oxycontin?
> I’m a career scientist
Who funds your grants?
[deleted] t1_irff3jf wrote
[deleted]
DeliciousCanary4711 t1_irgyxt0 wrote
> Additionally, you’re fixated on just this oxy question for some reason.
Leading cause of death for 18-45 adults in usa. No big deal?
iiioiia t1_irfgyfk wrote
>Wondering about my funding, implying that despite a decade of training to become a scientist, and all the experience after, I’m really just in it for the money and so am willing to push false narratives.
This is one possible interpretation, but there are many other possibilities.
Do they not cover the difference between subjective and objective reality in science and philosophy curriculum these days? Or how about psychology - did heuristics get covered at all in your studies?
> I can’t help you.
Whether you can help yourself seems like a more pressing issue.
VitriolicViolet t1_irgnpeu wrote
>How could it possibly not be a factor, given human nature? What other explaination would you propose for the scientific vetting of oxycontin?
you already made up your mind apparently so i dont know why your here.
if you cant think of any possible reasons oxy was passed other then money then god help you (its not like oxy has any medical applications. ffs using your logic all painkillers are designed to make money. fuck me you probably think pharma likes cancer and wouldnt cure it if they could).
'drugs are bad m'kay' isnt an argument and neither is shameless appeals to conspiracy.
DeliciousCanary4711 t1_irh18k5 wrote
> you already made up your mind apparently so i dont know why your here.
I find the argument made in the OP to be logical and persuasive.
> if you cant think of any possible reasons oxy was passed other then money then god help you (its not like oxy has any medical applications. ffs using your logic all painkillers are designed to make money. fuck me you probably think pharma likes cancer and wouldnt cure it if they could).
Oxycontin is more addictive with similar efficacy compared to other opioids. Why do you think it was pushed, if not for the billions of usd profit?
iiioiia t1_irfgrok wrote
>As far as whether I’m in the right place, I’m a career scientist with a bonus philosophy degree, I might have a clue.
This may provide some very valuable insight into the metaphysical nature of reality.
Vast-Material4857 t1_irg15q2 wrote
The replication crisis is in the field of psychology not biology.
[deleted] t1_irgpdeb wrote
[deleted]
Vast-Material4857 t1_irgz2wh wrote
Then you have no idea what you're talking. The replication crisis refers to a specific attempt to recreate major cornerstone studies in the field of psychology.
[deleted] t1_irh92qx wrote
[deleted]
SolidPoint t1_irf0shr wrote
His brother, John, also played a mean harmonica.
[deleted] t1_irf3pek wrote
[removed]
BernardJOrtcutt t1_iricmve wrote
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Read the Post Before You Reply
>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
Sparkykun t1_irepwmq wrote
He’s is saying people in marketing and customer service should also help with scientific research
ValyrianJedi t1_irfulbx wrote
I don't know about this one. The fact that knowledge can be owned in the form of IP, patents, trade secrets, etc is the only reason that a lot of progress that gets made in the first place. It's not like it was a century ago where major scientific breakthroughs can be made left and right in your garage. They require multimillion dollar labs and sometimes billions in resources, that frequently wouldn't exist if the results of the study couldn't be protected by IP laws.
Vast-Material4857 t1_irg0u49 wrote
The people that own those patents are rarely the people that created them. Science doesn't need them, they're just middlemen.
grandoz039 t1_irhz4oz wrote
That's not really a counter argument. If an inventor doesn't want to also be a business man selling, licensing, etc. their product, and they sell their patents to middlemen (who are responsible for the mentioned activities) for x% pay cut or front up payment instead of long term income, they still benefit from existence of patents. They wouldn't have anything to sell to the middlemen without it.
The part where patents are sold and change ownership after they're issued is irrelevant to the issue of inventors having ownership of their invention through patent.
Vast-Material4857 t1_iriqlcf wrote
We're talking about whether or not the only way innovation happens is through capitalism and markets. How can our IP system incentivize more innovation if the people who receive the largest incentivization aren't the ones actually doing the science? This relationship between capital and labor is fundamentally parasitic.
grandoz039 t1_irlvvec wrote
Either the inventors choose to sell a patent, in which case it's mutually beneficial relationship where inventor essentially pays (or rather gives up portion of their cut) to have someone else manage the business side of the things. That's clearly their choice, because they see it as better than keeping the patent. It's also completely reasonable, inventor's goal is to invent, which translates to creating a patent. When they sell their patent, they get paid for their job. What's not generally their job is to manage licensing, legal side of the things, business, marketing, etc., so it's understandable that's left to someone else, who obviously gets paid for that.
The other possibility is that the invention was made under a company and patent automatically belongs to them. Again, this is just the inventor doing the inventing and getting paid for it, while the company provides necessary resources, assumes both the risk and possible reward, in turn providing stable income to the inventor.
In either case, the existence of the patent is why the inventors get paid.
[deleted] t1_irmi99x wrote
[deleted]
Vast-Material4857 t1_irmkz0l wrote
I understand how it works it doesn't change a fact that this is a fundamentally parasitic relationship. The people that are profiting the most aren't the ones actually doing the work, the science, in fact, their whole strategy is to extract more than what they put into science.
I could take your argument and pose the relationship between Lord and Serf to seem mutually beneficial, but it isn't, one is exploiting the other. The relationship between capital and labor is the same except we actually work more than serfs do. This is not the only way to do things. Public institutions exist and they've produced Nuclear Power, Computers, GPS, Radar, Lasers, Microwaves. Can you provide me with private sector equivalent?
Without them, we would have no public education and if you believe that competition breeds more innovation, it's seems like you would want the barrier for entry to getting an education to be as low and freely available as possible, right? The more people that have an education, the more people that can enter particular job market thus generating more competition. That's what you need for science-- scientists.
Investors are just the patron class of a long standing war against the lower classes that actually have to work for a living. That relationship has not changed and it has done more to oppress humanity than liberate us and the belief that we owe all innovation to them is indoctrination and borderline Stockholm's syndrome.
grandoz039 t1_irmm6j6 wrote
>The people that are profiting the most aren't the ones actually doing the work, the science, in fact, their whole strategy is to extract more than what they put into science.
That's just arguing about % of share, which is admittedly a real problem in capitalism in general, business/enterprise/etc fields are over compensated, but that doesn't change the fundamentals, that's just playing with division of % of compensation.
The difference between a serf and this is that this is voluntarily. Ofc everything to do with labor could be argued to be somewhere on the spectrum of soft and hard "coercion", but I think inventing is way on the soft side, moreso than even current average in general.
We do more work as serfs because we want to have and do have more. Even then, if you look at the numbers they gave, it's often very close, or sometimes even more than back then.
>This is not the only way to do things. Public institutions exist and they've produced Nuclear Power, Computers, GPS, Radar, Lasers, Microwaves. Can you provide me with private sector equivalent?
And that all happened while capitalism was a thing. No one says only private sector is allowed to invent. That's one thing capitalism has going for it, you're free to form co-op, you're free to work in public sector, etc., it's not overly restrictive on following other paradigms.
>Without them, we would have no public education and if you believe that competition breeds more innovation, it's seems like you would want the barrier for entry to getting an education to be as freely available as possible? That's what you need for science. Investors are just the patron class of a long standing war against the lower classes that actually have to work for a living. That relationship has not changed and it has done more to oppress humanity than liberate us.
>The belief that we owe all innovation to this system is indoctrination and borderline Stockholm's syndrome.
I didn't say we owe all of this to this system (private sector within capitalism), just that this system produces certain solid results and isn't stifling.
Vast-Material4857 t1_irmqg4b wrote
>That's just arguing about % of share, which is admittedly a real problem in capitalism in general, business/enterprise/etc fields are over compensated, but that doesn't change the fundamentals
The fundamentals that these people are parasites. All the labor they use to accumulate that wealth is delegated. It's not just about percentage, it's the literally 90% of the pie for none of the labor. That's absurd.
>The difference between a serf and this is that this is voluntarily.
That's not true. Coerced consent exists. We do not have an option to NOT participate in capitalism. And btw, the argument that you can just return to anarcho-primitivism instead is asinine.
>And that all happened while capitalism was a thing. No one says only private sector is allowed to invent
That's not the result of capitalism though. That's literal socialism.
>No one says only private sector is allowed to invent.
No. What was said was it's the only reason we've made most of our progress which is patently untrue. Go find /u/valyrianjedi's original comment.
>That's one thing capitalism has going for it, you're free to form co-op, you're free to work in public sector, etc., it's not overly restrictive on following other paradigms.
Have you ever played monopoly? Can you imagine starting the game of Monopoly halfway through? Does that game become more equitable as time passes?
>We do more work as serfs because we want to have and do have more.
No. We work more because things cost more. Obligation to pay and therefore labor has never stopped and has always been backed with the threat of violence. Buying property is buying the rights to a 1/3rd of a family/individual's income. There's a finite amount of land and with a growing population creates a landed elite.
> that this system produces certain solid results and isn't stifling.
Do you understand that capitalism isn't a static concept? It's something that's evolved and changed first through mercantilism and then industrialization and eventually globalization? It's still changing. We are in late stage capitalism and we are now dealing with the inevitability of inflation outpacing wages and concentrations of wealth never seen before in history. None of this is even mentioning what it's done to our planet in just the last few hundred years.
ValyrianJedi t1_irmtcb3 wrote
You're acting like labor is the only thing of value to a company or to the production of something. It isn't. If one buy spends $10 million on factory equipment then hires people to run it, then he has contributed just as much (if not significantly more) than the people working the machines...
And acting like we don't work more than serfs because we have more stuff is just silly. Money basically just allows you to take the product of work in one area and exchange it for the product of work in another area. Serfs had to have food and a shack with no power, water, etc. If that was all we had to pay for today it wouldn't take nearly as much work. If you're working and buying it with money instead of building and farming it yourself, you're basically having to do enough work to exchange with the builders and the farmers for the product of their work... Today you're having to do enough to exchange with the builders, and the farmers, and the power company, and the water company, and the people making your phones, and the people running the cell towers, and the people building cars, and on and on and on... More things consumed or used by definitely requires more work to create.
Vast-Material4857 t1_irn2yaq wrote
>You're acting like labor is the only thing of value to a company or to the production of something.
Precisely. There is dead labor which includes the machines and the factories and the roads, all products of active labor-- live labor. We mix both forms of labor when we produce. We don't need to be privately owned to be productive. If we cooperated it would be magnitudes cheaper.
>It isn't. If one buy spends $10 million on factory equipment then hires people to run it, then he has contributed just as much (if not significantly more) than the people working the machines
Contributing? In what way? The act of paying? That's trivial. Build a house.
>More things consumed or used by definitely requires more work to create.
Are we talking iphones? Having more technology should mean less labor and that according to Keynes.
And besides that the biggest issue is how we are leveraging people to trade hours of their lives and for less and less. Ignore money. Housing is the biggest most important metric for necessities which is burning a bigger hole in people's pockets than the new 80 different types of ketchup. Focus on the relationship between our labor and the way it's relatively valued against those main necessities to see is what's becoming diluted. That trend is not stopping, that's the issue. These are people's lives and we're taking more and more of it away from them for less and less. Food, housing, healthcare are all non-optional expenses and they're getting more and more expensive despite better technology.
And, again, as we established earlier, we've had greater contributions from publicly funded institutions, you can't really attribute every sparkly thing we have today to purely capitalism. We had to fight tooth and nail for s lot of this, even just banking insurance. There was a literal attempted coup against FDR called the business plot.
This system is run by mafiosos. It's horribly ineffecient at distributing resources, it concentrates so much wealth and it's literally posing an existential threat to us. There's no way to justify .001% of the population should have that much power. It's corrupting democracy, science, public health and what are we getting for it? Walmart? McDonalds? It's not science. It's not culture. What more do we have to sacrifice to the Moloch for it to be the 1960s again? 99%?
ValyrianJedi t1_irn4sfi wrote
What do you mean contribute in what way? They literally directly provide the money without which the company can't exist. Acting like capital isn't just as important as labor to a company is either painfully misinformed or just plain silly... And I don't thunk you need me to describe the things we have today that serfs didn't have. Keynesian economics saying that productivity increases with technology doesn't mean that it doesn't still require more labor to create more things...
The more you say the more it sounds like you don't really unset this topic as well as you seem to think you do, and that you're one of those people who thinks that watching some YouTube videos and reading a few articles makes you an economics expert.
Vast-Material4857 t1_irn78vz wrote
>What do you mean contribute in what way? They literally directly provide the money without which the company can't exist. Acting like capital isn't just as important as labor to a company is either painfully misinformed or just plain silly
A company to do what? Produce something? Do you need private ownership to do that? What are these owners exactly providing to everyone? Permission to work? Financial judgement? Do they not have fiduciaries to do that for them? If they have that, what is exactly is the labor of owning if the management of it can outsourced? Please, explain to me how that's worth 90% of the profit?
>Keynesian economics saying that productivity increases with technology doesn't mean that it doesn't still require more labor to create more things
Keynes literally said we would have a 15 hr work week.
>YouTube videos and reading a few articles makes you an economics expert.
What type of economics? We don't operate by one economic theory. All we can do is react and attempt to manage a system that crashes every 7-8 years.
Are you familiar with the philosophy of science? Economics claims to be a science correct so it should be within its purview. You should check out Thomas Kuhn so you could see how politically motivated even our hardest sciences could be. I'd also suggest a history of economics, Michael Hudson has written plenty on this.
Finally, do you not have any answers to my points about capitalism corrupting science, democracy, or public health? Do you believe it's responsible for global warming? Do you even believe in global warming?
ValyrianJedi t1_irn8z4k wrote
You have to just be being purposefully dense at this point. Or a troll. I refuse to believe that someone can make all of these comments that you're making while genuinely trying to argue in good faith... Think that's my cue to stop trying to have a conversation with you.
Vast-Material4857 t1_irnc7dg wrote
Again, i keep asking you questions but you just keep ignoring literally all of them. How exactly are the owners of capital providing 90% equity? Is it permission? Their special blessing? Is it the act of saying, "yes, i well spend my wealth here" that you believe is comparable to the act hard labor?
Secondly, even if you believe the owner's labor is just it's just the act of investing, don't they hire people for that too? So it isn't just that either. Its just the decision to invest at all and not even what to invest in and is that a really that much harder of a decision? Does that require so much brain power to the point it deserves 90% of the pie to you?
What is it? You keep evading this very basic question and ignoring everything and you want to accuse me of engaging in bad faith? What do they do? Even if you believe in "economics" why cant you tell me why Keynes was wrong about the efficiency of technology making it so we have to work less?
You have no answers to any of this. I already know. You're a victim of decades and decades of propaganda. All you can offer is the same talking points people were giving in the 70s except we have the conclusion of those policies already. It didn't work. Keynes was wrong and so was Reagan and so was Clinton.
ValyrianJedi t1_irndod0 wrote
And I have answered the question repeatedly. What they provide is money. If you don't see how that warrants equity then you don't understand what equity is... Labor has nothing to do with it. They aren't providing labor, they are providing capital. They have equity because they bought the equity...
What you are saying is equivalent to "why does the guy who paid to have a house built for his family have all the equity in the house? He didn't do any labor to build it. It should be the construction workers' house."
Vast-Material4857 t1_irnfq7s wrote
So it's just permission. That's it. That's what you believe is equal to ~90% of the work?
>don't understand what equity is... Labor has nothing to do with it.
Equity is value. Who has it? The value of an enterprise is it's productivity. How can you say labor has nothing to do with equity if they're the ones that are creating the productivity that makes it all valuable in the first place? Even the management is labor. That makes no sense.
>What you are saying is equivalent to "why does the guy who paid to have a house built for his family have all the equity in the house? He didn't do any labor to build it. It should be the construction workers' house."
No, it should belong to public which the construction workers would be part of. That's what it means to have public ownership. That's called socialism. It builds houses and creates science.
ValyrianJedi t1_irnglxz wrote
Jesus Christ... No. It isn't. I can't tell if you are being purposefully dense or are genuinely incapable of following, but it's pretty clear that you just plain aren't going to understand at this point, so this is where I stop responding.
Vast-Material4857 t1_irnhfwa wrote
What are you specifically contradicting? My use of the word equity? Me saying labor provides all the value? If it's that one, can you show me how it doesn't and what the owners do that that therefore deserves 90%? You keep ignoring that question.
Vast-Material4857 t1_irnhri2 wrote
Equity is the value you have of something, the share of it. Am I wrong on that? I don't think so.
Vast-Material4857 t1_irniexn wrote
Also, never got an answer as to why Keynes was wrong about that 15 hr work week. Seems like a glaring hole in your "just study economics" argument when you can't be bothered to even recognize the contradictions by those same economists.
A lot of unanswered questions.
Vast-Material4857 t1_irmro0c wrote
>That's one thing capitalism has going for it, you're free to form co-op, you're free to work in public sector, etc., it's not overly restrictive on following other paradigms.
How familiar are you with the history of unions in this country?
ValyrianJedi t1_irg2es8 wrote
They are usually the people funding something, which is definitely needed as well
VitriolicViolet t1_irgnzga wrote
oh you mean like how gov used to until the wealthy lobbied them out of it?
again, useless middle men. Actually no they are worse then useless as they hold research back massively by only funding grants that will generate a ROI.
commodification of science is slowing it massively while we waste billions making new iphones.
ValyrianJedi t1_irgtven wrote
That whole comment just screams that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about
bakerpartnersltd t1_irhlc3a wrote
And you sound hopelessly naive.
ValyrianJedi t1_iriip1v wrote
I'm definitely not naive on that topic
Vast-Material4857 t1_irgb5t2 wrote
Yeah, those are middlemen. Bureaucrats. They do not contribute to science.
Bensemus t1_irges1j wrote
Except the funding that makes it possible... Is this a challenging concept for you?
In the US the public is rarely in favour of spending tax dollars on science. People are constantly calling for NASA's budget to be reduced as they see no purpose in the science they do. Now try and replace all the private dollars with government ones and see how that's received.
Vast-Material4857 t1_irgijjf wrote
But it's not inherent to science. That's a clerical issue. You can conduct science publicly just as well as you can privately, nothing necessitates private organizations to being essential to creation of new science.
>In the US the public is rarely in favour of spending tax dollars on science.
Do you think we produce more science through private institutions than public ones?
VitriolicViolet t1_irgo8dc wrote
>You can conduct science publicly just as well as you can privately, nothing necessitates private organizations to being essential to creation of new science.
decades of brainwashing have convinced most people gov shouldnt run hospitals, prisons or schools ffs. these idiots think gov doing things is communism and automatically worse then private leechs doing the same thing +cost.
ValyrianJedi t1_irgiyo6 wrote
> They do not contribute to science.
They literally directly fund it
Vast-Material4857 t1_irgkc3f wrote
Would you call them scientists?
ValyrianJedi t1_irgtqxi wrote
Obviously not. You don't have to be a scientist to contribute to science though
Vast-Material4857 t1_irgywu6 wrote
Being a middleman is not a contribution, it's a hindrance.
ValyrianJedi t1_irh4wmm wrote
I don't think you understand what the word "middleman" means.
Vast-Material4857 t1_irh6x09 wrote
What's inbetween labor and consumers?
ValyrianJedi t1_irh7d20 wrote
Certainly not investors, who's contribution takes place before the scientists', and without which the scientists' contribution couldn't exist.
Vast-Material4857 t1_irh8kgh wrote
We have public institutions. Those exist.
Also, do you believe private institutions produce more science?
ValyrianJedi t1_irh90qn wrote
Yes. Unequivocally. The fact that you apparently don't means that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about and there isn't any point even responding to you anymore.
Vast-Material4857 t1_irh9bhm wrote
Can you cite that for me?
ValyrianJedi t1_irhaowb wrote
It's not hard information to find. From a super cursory Google search pulling up the Funding of Science page on Wikipedia: "According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), more than 60% of research and development in scientific and technical fields is carried out by industry, and 20% and 10% respectively by universities and government."... The International Science Council says that "The private sector’s share of global science and innovation is growing, and is now estimated to represent approximately 70 per cent of global expenditure on science.". Source...
It's really not a disputable fact.
Vast-Material4857 t1_irhc8c9 wrote
Do you consider monster flavored ketchup science?
ValyrianJedi t1_irhces3 wrote
So you ask for sources, then throw out some juvenile nonsense when presented with them. Yeah, definitely done bothering with you.
Vast-Material4857 t1_irhd2ra wrote
That counts as R&D and for some reason that's weighed the same as a new vaccine. Do you not think that's little manipulative? What do you have against more nuance?
If you want s source, how about this one?
VitriolicViolet t1_irgo2s4 wrote
you mean gov does, these clowns pick up what we paid for then tweak and it pretend its their own 'innovation'.
nothing innovative about the millionth smartphone.
ryoushure t1_irf6wn8 wrote
I don't care who owns it, the science is settled.
/s
nicoco3890 t1_irgbnjr wrote
>Complains about people not understanding the paradox of tolerance while not understanding it themselves
Reddit moment
The paradox only refers to violence specifically. What is intolerance? Intolerance is the refusal to engage in dialogue to influence society and instead turn to violence, agression on others & terrorism.
A tolerant society indeed cannot tolerate such acts, because they indeed threaten its very existence. As such, they must be punished appropriately under the law.
There is no extension of this principle to ideas, because doing so results directly in the breach of the right to freedom of speech, expression, thoughts, etc.
When you punch a Nazi, you are being the intolerable intolerant, because you are abandoning dialogue and resorting to violence. When that Nazi is gonna punch a Jew, he will be the intolerable intolerant, and appropriately punished for assault.
The ACLU in the 1940s or 50s defended the KKK and nazis going into a Jewish neighborhood holding a rally saying how they should kill all Jews and fucking won the case. Because such is Freedom of Speech. At the rally, there was no violence nor imminent threat of harm to any individual. They went there, spoke, and left.
And we protect that because we want to protect communist going at the door of Wall Street and protesting against the existence of the rich and the whole system.
You cannot be a liberal society when you abandon liberal principles. You are how you act, the end does not justify the means, and unjust/evil means can never result in good in the end. The only way forward is to focus on establishing just means, and the end will follow.
NonNefarious t1_irhtjae wrote
And this is why software (algorithm) patents are supposed to be illegal.
[deleted] t1_ireoh98 wrote
[removed]
BernardJOrtcutt t1_irf2fsw wrote
Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:
> Read the Post Before You Reply
> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
[deleted] t1_irfcwdv wrote
[deleted]
Rhopunzel t1_irfuw00 wrote
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9aM9Ch97U8 I prefer the cell block wisdom of Carl Poppa
[deleted] t1_irfy2sf wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_irgbva6 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_irgrv26 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_irh5s5y wrote
[deleted]
alonela t1_irhbeye wrote
There’s so much corruption.
Dudeguybromanfella t1_irhc205 wrote
Self aware wolf of the Mont Pelerin Society.
bemoreal t1_irhiafg wrote
Is that why true free/hispeed internet isn’t green and available in every house, why they slow down renewable energies and lag on hispeed rail
cold-flame1 t1_irhrg7z wrote
It's just the good old problem of incentives misalignment. And the article doesn't seem to have any solution that is practical to implement.
Suppose we did form an independent research committee. That committee now has the incentive to test medicines in such a rigorous and harsh ways that nothing would get approved. In a situation of ambiguity, this committee would rather reject a newer medicine based on some vague or ill-founded doubts, rather than approve a medicine that's reasonably effective. They are not paid to get out an effective medicine in public.
Nevitt t1_irg7int wrote
Carl Poppa?
shadowrun456 t1_irf8jxg wrote
Sorry if this is off-topic, but I think an extremely important thing that Karl Popper described is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
I believe that in most of the EU countries, and in the US, not understanding the "paradox of tolerance" is the number #1 threat to those societies.
What the "paradox of tolerance" explains, is the logical fallacy which the enemies of society hide behind, to prevent being punished and destroyed. Unfortunately, in most cases, they do it successfully, and each and every step leads closer to the destruction of those societies. It basically goes like this: "if you're tolerant, then you must tolerate my intolerance". In other words: "if you try to destroy fascism, you're a fascist, because only fascists try to destroy other cultures/ideologies".
In reality, killing a murderer is not murder - it's self-defense, capital punishment, etc. Taking stuff by force from a thief/robber is not theft/robbery - it's restitution, confiscation, compensation, etc. In the same way, destroying a fascistic culture/ideology is not fascism - it's whatever you want to call it, etc.
[deleted] t1_irffr5b wrote
[removed]
TheTrueLordHumungous t1_iresvcg wrote
This entire article is based on the premise that the clinical trial process is flawed and rigged based on a few anecdotes of dangerous drugs that made it through this process. First, only 14% of drug candidates successfully passes clinical trial testing and regulatory approval. If the clinical trial process was truly rigged, wouldn't we see a much higher approval rate for them? When six out of seven of you experiments end in failure and the median cost for each failure is $20 million you'd think the process is very rigorous. The authors also mention the replication crisis in medial research, which is a real issue across all fields, but how does this compare to psychology (the authors specialty). The entire clinical process is a way to filter out bad and non reproducible research with actual experimentation and it seems to work fairly well. As bad as the replication crisis is in medicine its far worse in psychology ... perhaps they should clean their own rooms before pointing fingers at others.