Alan Archibald
My reply to Lynne:
I hope HHS Secretary Kennedy finances an investigation of the Ford study.
Will he?
Every scientist I know -- and I know many, especially in the medical community -- welcomes the ascertainment of truth through the Scientific Method.
But it is also true that "statistical outliers" are the norm.
"Statistical outliers" are relatively isolated findings that contradict the decisive preponderance of scientific findings.
These outliers are true in their domain, but do not overthrow the preponderance of scientific findings.
One finding -- or a small number -- of contrary findings do not make for a "new scientific rule."
In broad terms, these are the ground rules for establishing the validity of scientific findings.
I am immediately intrigued by these contrary Ford findings and fervently hope that Kennedy announces a budgetary set-aside to look more deeply into the unpublished Ford findings.
My curiosity has been piqued, and I am eager for a closer look.
I -- and ALL the scientists I know - have no trouble slaughtering sacred cows.
But the scientific method needs to be applied in order to demonstrate the measure of scientific "certainty" that is within our human grasp.
It is -- emphatically -- not enough to identify a genuine exception to a rule, and then to assume that the exception justifies the immediate creation of a new, contrary rule. (I venture that this practice of assuming that "an exception justifies the assertion of a new rule" is the core epistemological mistake made -- routinely -- on the right side of the aisle.)
My own closer look this morning leads me to this finding: https://www.theguardian.com/.../vaccine-hearing-congress...
No comments:
Post a Comment