"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >, "Dutch" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article >, "Dutch"
>> >> > >
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "Ron" > wrote
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > In article >, "Dutch"
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> "Ron" > wrote
>> >> >> >> > I've seen no evidence that you apply critical thinking to the
>> >> >> >> > subject
>> >> >> >> > matter. The preponderance of evidence is that "this is what I
>> >> >> >> > believe"
>> >> >> >> > now let's see what I can google up to confirm that belief.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Confirm or dispel. You just described the scientific method.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Which is precisely thinking that lead to, oh, say, thalidomide
>> >> >> > and
>> >> >> > current drug recalls, as examples.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Bad results are not the fault of the scientific method, they are
>> >> >> caused
>> >> >> by
>> >> >> failures by scientists.
>> >> >
>> >> > Do be specific for us. What was the "failures by scientists" who
>> >> > followed the scientific method in reviewing thalidomide before its
>> >> > sale
>> >> > to the public?
>> >>
>> >> They should have tested it on pregnant mice.
>> >
>> > Why? the evidence suggests that the human trials on children already
>> > revealed problems with thalidomide with the animals.
>>
>> Rephrase please.
>
> Ooops. The evidence suggested that there were problems with the human
> trials for human children even before the drug was released for the
> market. ONE of the difficulties was that only a few scientists were in
> disagreement. IOW, the consensus of the medical community was that this
> was a good drug. Further, those conducting the research fell prey to
> type I and II errors when exploring their hypotheses.
>
>> Further, several
>> > who disagreed with the consensus of the experts were ignored.
>>
>> Several *what*, other experts, non-experts, journalists, passers-by?
>
> The public record show 3 degreed individuals at least in the same
> profession

So it wasn't the presence of "experts" that was the primary problem, you
agree that experts are superior to laymen for doing research..

had concerns with the drug and the rationale. However, as
> confirmation bias allows for people saw what they wanted to see.

So are you suggesting that the minority opinion should overrule the
majority? That would seem to make things worse, even if would have netted
the right result here. Hindsight is so crystal clear.


>> > IOW,
>> > evidence already existed of significant problems without even needing
>> > to
>> > test the drug on pregnant mice.
>>
>> If testing showed serious problems then the drug should not have been
>> released.
>
> But they followed the consensus with respect to the drug.

And they were wrong. Does that mean the method was flawed or that science
makes mistakes sometimes?

>
>> >> > Failures by scientists would seem to support my position that
>> >> > "experts"
>> >> > and researchs are flawed like any other human beings.
>> >>
>> >> Of course they are, nobody is denying that.
>> >
>> > Without critical thinking, how do you determine which experts may make
>> > errors and which don't?
>>
>> When did I advocate abandoning critical thinking?
>
> What critical thinking have you applied to what you have labeled
> "conventional wisdom". Repeating information that one is exposed to is
> not a demonstration of critical thinking.

It is if one agrees that the information makes sense, or if one finds the
source reputable. Nobody has the time to reexamine every study on every
topic.

>> > I'm noticing that you haven't addressed the issue of Type I and II
>> > errors with respect to the experts, science and the scientific method.
>>
>> What about it?
>
> Let's see how this affects your stated position on these issues.

They came up with the wrong conclusion in this case, it happens, they're
human.