I said, do what the doctors say, especially when the doctor is a personal friend who, I'm reasonably sure, sincerely has my best interest at heart.
You had some many good things to say, I ran out of quotes I was allowed to pull at one time! I think you and I could have a really interesting discussion on this topic! But not here, as it would require including some politics. I understand why, but I also think it's a shame in this case as it think it would be really interesting. Also,
@Fishmanic , if this as a broader conversation seems too far off topic, feel free to bump it elsewhere, delete it, warm me, whatever feel right. Please do know, I'm certainly not trying to be political in my reply here - or inflammatory for that matter.
I think what you say about the doctor you trust is really important! Indeed, I think trust and personal relationships are critical for engaging across any ideological lines. But with things headed where they seem to be going, I still wonder how best to communicate with folks about important issues when there is not the same level of connection? I don't have answers. Just seems like something we are confronting.
Part of it is that, while science is unbiassed and fact-based, scientists are human just like the rest of us, and subject to preconceived notions, hubris, greed, and all the other faults of humanity.
Here I have to push back a bit. This trope gets used all the time in the social studies to justify their biases when they do research - "well, physicists aren't free from bias as they are human too!" The thing is it's true. It's like saying evolution is a theory. It is. But in the scientific and not casual sense. So, yes, scientists make human mistakes and see the world through human eyes, and peer review doesn't catch everything (less these days, but that's a whole academic reward system tirade I could go on that I won't). But, science is still the far and away best system humans have developed to understand the reality we find ourselves in. Full stop. And it is because it is a system created to correct for our human biases. This is why the bigger part of training a good scientist is getting them to think like a scientist; not filling someone's head with facts as folks seem to think it is. Statements like the one you made throw the baby out with the bathwater. Can there be instances of group-think among scientists. Absolutely. But it's far less common than people seem to think it is, because we are all employed to refute what the other guy is saying. That said, there are cases that occur, and are occurring. But outside of science, everyone seems to think it is the things they disagree with where scientists are "colluding". It's usually not. It's most often on pedantic stuff that we are blind to until someone comes along and shows us data about how dumb we've been!
So, when I hear someone say that in a debate, interview, political debate, I cringe! Why? Rarely when someone says that do they themselves have the background knowledge of the science to back up the statement they just made. It's an appeal to authority, and it erodes the authority that science has in the public eye (despite the fact we have advanced considerably on science's findings singe the 1600's and we all seem to recognize that). Basically, it is not a valid for of logical proof and that annoys the crud out of me when it hear it used in arguments (I hangout with philosophers - we have bad habits!). So, I'd say you are right to be suspicious when you hear someone blurt out that phrase.
But power, including the intellectual kind, corrupts, and those with the power often do not have the best interests of ordinary people at heart.
We could have a deeper discussion here, were this another format. But, I do want to say that scientists, believe it or not, are almost to a person, not people in authority. I get chewed out when a student feel put out by an assignment. I don't even have authority over my class for Pete's sake.
That being so, it can be healthy to not trust the establishment too much, scientific or otherwise.
Here again, I think we'd have a fruitful conversation elsewhere. But, I would not lump the scientific "establishment" in with powerful interests, political, financial, or otherwise. I think it's a different entity for a number of reasons, but I don't know how to engage on that without violating the policies here. So, I'll stop there.
Right along with that goes the often healthy distrust of government upon which our great nation was founded. Many Americans value liberty more than safety, and will gladly put themselves and others at risk in order to safeguard their individual freedom.
This is perhaps the comment that makes me want to discuss the political side with you most. But I can't. So I won't. But it would be fun!
And of course, history shows that government entities generally don't like giving up power once they have it.
Hard to argue with that! No body ever want their "side" to no longer be in power - it's always a thread to... Whatever the fear factor of the day is.
An interesting book on the topic
I've read some of his work. He has a number of really good things to say in the stuff I've come across. I disagree with a bit of it, but that's pretty par for the course with me. I might have to check that one out. Thanks!
all of which are morally neutral
Don't worry, I am comfortable with the realization morals are products of their time and place. Not some absolute, as comforting as that would be. So, when people make cases about their flexibility, I am neither uncomfortable nor taken aback. Sound like it might be a good read!
You work in a skeptical art.
It could be. BTW, now I'm going to call myself an artist!
