I continue to maintain that studying, working in or calling oneself a scientist doesn’t make it so - particularly if you only focus on part of the picture because that’s all you’re aware of, and you reject anything outside of it. One can’t know everything, but at least one should be open that much exists outside of the limited realms they've learned about. Most often the attitude of scientific experts is “If I don’t know it, it can’t exist.”
Not that it wasn’t evident before covid, but scientists have certainly revealed their arrogance during this period. As far back as April 2020, I read a news piece about an Oxford-AZ researcher rueing the funds then spent on PPE, saying the money should go to the likes of her because what she was doing was more important. Not that I ever believed in the “science” behind vaccination, nor even back then believed any forthcoming vaccine would be safe, she gave me even more reason not to trust researchers. Since then I’ve repeatedly observed not only the same arrogance but also defensiveness among such science types, plus a strong obsessiveness about their work including overstating its value. That’s what I see as one of the reasons they can be easily influenced through grant money.
I appreciate your writings even though I don’t always find it easy to follow all of them. I’m glad I persisted with this one as I learned a lot. I’m kind of on the same page as Feyerabend, but I like the way you’ve presented both sides. Like him, I’d say that medical scientists dismiss (or dissociates from) physiology and pathophysiology if acknowledging it confuses their practice of prescriptions. That’s why adverse reactions are often played down or decided to be all in the patient’s head. The evident limitations in the minds/attitudes of many scientists and government officials revealed during covid makes broad personal choice even more necessary.
I continue to maintain that studying, working in or calling oneself a scientist doesn’t make it so - particularly if you only focus on part of the picture because that’s all you’re aware of, and you reject anything outside of it. One can’t know everything, but at least one should be open that much exists outside of the limited realms they've learned about. Most often the attitude of scientific experts is “If I don’t know it, it can’t exist.”
Not that it wasn’t evident before covid, but scientists have certainly revealed their arrogance during this period. As far back as April 2020, I read a news piece about an Oxford-AZ researcher rueing the funds then spent on PPE, saying the money should go to the likes of her because what she was doing was more important. Not that I ever believed in the “science” behind vaccination, nor even back then believed any forthcoming vaccine would be safe, she gave me even more reason not to trust researchers. Since then I’ve repeatedly observed not only the same arrogance but also defensiveness among such science types, plus a strong obsessiveness about their work including overstating its value. That’s what I see as one of the reasons they can be easily influenced through grant money.
I appreciate your writings even though I don’t always find it easy to follow all of them. I’m glad I persisted with this one as I learned a lot. I’m kind of on the same page as Feyerabend, but I like the way you’ve presented both sides. Like him, I’d say that medical scientists dismiss (or dissociates from) physiology and pathophysiology if acknowledging it confuses their practice of prescriptions. That’s why adverse reactions are often played down or decided to be all in the patient’s head. The evident limitations in the minds/attitudes of many scientists and government officials revealed during covid makes broad personal choice even more necessary.