Re: [silk] War on Science?

It is what keeps for example homeopathy in business so .. On 05/02/19, 12:56 PM, "silklist on behalf of Srini RamaKrishnan" wrote: On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 12:22 PM Deepa Agashe wrote: > As I see it, scientific understanding means that we have greater > repeatability than

Re: [silk] War on Science?

As long as a Martin Shkrell-esque big pharma is a convenient whipping boy that nobody objects to why at all spoil the argument by bringing cold logic into it? On 05/02/19, 1:24 PM, "silklist on behalf of Deepa Agashe" wrote: > On 05-Feb-2019, at 13:02, Srini RamaKrishnan wrote:

Re: [silk] War on Science?

> On 05-Feb-2019, at 13:02, Srini RamaKrishnan wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 12:22 PM Deepa Agashe > wrote: > >> and the fact that vaccines fail in 1% (or some such small fraction) of >> humans does not make this understanding unscientific. > > > 1% of a 100

Re: [silk] War on Science?

On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 1:15 PM Deepa Agashe wrote: > Yes, it is. And a very useful one, actually. Indeed, yet medical systems that rely on it (in addition to other active agents) are dismissed as quackery, unless it is from a big drug company of course.

Re: [silk] War on Science?

> On 05-Feb-2019, at 12:56, Srini RamaKrishnan wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 12:22 PM Deepa Agashe > wrote: > >> As I see it, scientific understanding means that we have greater >> repeatability than expected by chance- i.e. the signal to noise ratio is >>

Re: [silk] War on Science?

On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 12:32 PM Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Known measurable failure rates > It's not the same as building a bridge that comes crashing down - the fundamental problem is understood in bridge building but due to human error these failures can occur. However in medicine the

Re: [silk] War on Science?

On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 12:22 PM Deepa Agashe wrote: > and the fact that vaccines fail in 1% (or some such small fraction) of > humans does not make this understanding unscientific. 1% of a 100 million children is 1 million. Even 0.1% is 100,000 kids that will definitely have an adverse

Re: [silk] War on Science?

On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 12:22 PM Deepa Agashe wrote: > As I see it, scientific understanding means that we have greater > repeatability than expected by chance- i.e. the signal to noise ratio is > high. So is the placebo effect science? It is greater than expected by chance, isn't it?

Re: [silk] War on Science?

Known measurable failure rates Failure rates that reduce based on periodic improvements in a vaccine + in clinical protocols I fail to see what is unscientific here. On 05/02/19, 11:53 AM, "silklist on behalf of Srini RamaKrishnan" wrote: Thanks to the many who wrote in to say that

Re: [silk] War on Science?

> Things like vaccination are tricky because they are not strictly science. > Science is repeatable, and things that don't work on everyone the same > don't strictly deserve the label of science. That doesn't mean they should > never be made mandatory, there merely has to be a very very high

Re: [silk] War on Science?

Thanks to the many who wrote in to say that science is not the last word on reality, we now see that science can be wrong, is always only the partial truth, and the key is to be open to new ideas. If we see that all of us; scientists and non-scientists alike are in the business of understanding

Re: [silk] War on Science?

Last bits of information on vaccines: My kids are grown, and current on their MMR, chickenpox, HPV, tetanus, and flu shots. They've also had the rabies series. I have severe egg allergy and am delighted that egg-free flu shots became available a few years ago. The co-evolution of

Re: [silk] War on Science?

On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 00:23, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: As for crowd diseases being benign and immunity, I'd suggest looking at > either whooping cough or polio for counter examples. Or German measles > (rubella) - which, if a pregnant woman contracts it, is mild for her, but > can and will