[kwlug-disc] OT: Certainty in Science (was: Ivermectin)

[Steve Izma]

On Tue, Dec 06, 2022 at 12:58:04PM -0500, Khalid Baheyeldin wrote:
> Subject: Re: [kwlug-disc] Ivermectin
> 
> Here is another example showing that researchers have the
> freedom to investigate off patent FDA approved drugs, and that
> medical journals do publish the results.
> ...
> Those claiming conspiracies and suppression need to come up
> with evidence that a) magic cure X is effective, and b) that it
> is being suppressed by Y and Z.

I haven't yet responded to the emails from around 20 November for
various reasons:

- I've been very busy with two software projects
- the discussion was getting too detailed for this list and I
  don't think we participants were doing a good enough job making
  these particular scientific problems relevant to the politics
  of open source
- the complications of the topics being discussed deserve
  research and thoughtful, constructive responses, and these take
  time -- personally, I need weeks
- my original point -- that contemporary science is permeated
  with the dogmatism of certainty -- didn't catch on, and the
  topic wandered into whether ivermectin works or not; I don't
  really care about that, since I think the poverty of the
  mainstream research going into the issue should lead us to
  asking why so many people see research results that they like
  and then stop asking questions
- most important: because the discussion degenerated into
  accusations of believing in conspiracy theories; this is a sure
  way to stop inquiry; accusing someone else of believing in
  conspiracty theories is a great way of avoiding the hard
  questions on the issue, especially the political ones.

A weak attempt to make this relevant to open source:
authoritarianism in the institutions of medical, agricultural,
and pharmaceutical science is very similar to what many of us
have experienced in trying to be computer scientists, especially
within large institutions like universities, governments, and
transnational corporations.

So, here are a few of the approaches I think are worth exploring.
These are certainly not short takes, but I suggest perusing them
for good ideas on how science has worked and failed to work
throughout history.

An excellent and accessible summary of dogmatism in the history
of science; Lawrence Principe on "Scientism and the Religion of
Science" <https://youtu.be/XFVARio4pAk>

Important figures in 20th Century philosophy of science:
Karl Popper, e.g., <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper>
Thomas Kuhn, e.g., <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn>
and (especially) Paul Feyerabend
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend>.

Fabrication in scientific research, or the crisis of
reproducibility:
<https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005738>
1500 Scientists lift the lid on reproducibility:
<https://www.nature.com/articles/533452a>

For your entertainment and enlightenment(?):
xkcd on clinical trials:
<https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/clinical_trials.png>
too many variables:
<https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/confounding_variables.png>

I also think the links that Chris Frey has supplied are useful,
not just about ivermectin but also about the pressure on
professionals not to have dissenting opinions within their
perhaps overly hierarchical professions.

	-- Steve

-- 
Steve Izma
-
Home: 35 Locust St., Kitchener, Ontario, Canada  N2H 1W6
E-mail: sizma at golden.net  phone: 519-745-1313
cell (text only; not frequently checked): 519-998-2684

==
The most erroneous stories are those we think we know best – and
therefore never scrutinize or question.
    -- Stephen Jay Gould, *Full House: The Spread of Excellence
       from Plato to Darwin*, 1996