> Corruption of clinical trials? Is that a common problem?

LOL tell me you know nothing about the state of modern science...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

> If so how should it be addressed? The author is just going on some sort of rant.

Someone ia ranting without being at all informed all right...

Nature has a bit of corruption at every level and humans are no different. Creating a system free of any corrupting at all is impossible. The goal is to create a system that limits it and has the capability to shoulder the weight of what does slip though

>if .01% of a system is genuinely rigged,

What does this even mean? How can a system be 0.01% rigged?

Are you staying that 1 in every 10 thousand drugs is going to erroneously pass a clinical trial - because what? The system chose to rig it in that particular drugs favour? That doesn't make much sense. It's much more likely that in this proposed scenario the drug would be erroneously approved due to the actions of a single, or a few corrupt individuals - which does not represent the system.

I would say presenting it as binary is ridiculous and intentionally misleading.

[removed]

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

>But it’s reason that binds freedom which actually establishes moral rules.

This is a solid enough starting framework. But it's also been the starting framework for thousands of years of Western moral philosophy.

We have choices. We need to decide which of these options is "right" or "just." So let's just use some logical problem-solving. Except that it seems as though "reasonable" people strongly disagree about many things.

So the real question morality is concerned with is when does MY "reason" trump YOUR "freedom?"

His brother, John, also played a mean harmonica.

Question:

a) if .01% of a system is genuinely rigged, is this statement as a binary True or False: "The system is rigged."

b) if two people answer differently, is one of them correct and the other incorrect, objectively and necessarily?

Oh that doesn't matter, yes you observe the first two lengths with sight, read the numbers or whatever - but the length and angles of the third length, cannot be observed, nor do they need to be observed for the knowledge about it to be understood.

Pessimism roams everything on Reddit. We should be glad that there are people out there who don't live life by the subliminal dictates of redditors.

> if you observe the lengths of 2 sides of a triangle

Tell me how to "observe the lengths of 2 sides of a triangle" without you having to see, hear, smell, taste, or touch something.

​

How can one OBSERVE length without sight?

Well, leaving something like direct brain stimulation aside.. deduction?

For exmaple, if you observe the lengths of 2 sides of a triangle, you can quite easily use a little logic and math to deduce the 'knowledge' of the third side of the triangle.

Part of the problem, at least here in the US, is how campaigns are run. It can be difficult to be well informed on what a candidate is really about, especially in the heat of a mud flinging campaign.

But regardless of all that, democracy as we've practiced it in the US doesn't work anymore, at least beyond the local level. People get a sense of accomplishment from voting but there is too often a disconnect between what people vote for and what the candidates actually do, and so in that respect, I think democracy, the representative kind anyway, is broken.

This entire article is based on the premise that the clinical trial process is flawed and rigged based on a few anecdotes of dangerous drugs that made it through this process. First, only 14% of drug candidates successfully passes clinical trial testing and regulatory approval. If the clinical trial process was truly rigged, wouldn't we see a much higher approval rate for them? When six out of seven of you experiments end in failure and the median cost for each failure is $20 million you'd think the process is very rigorous. The authors also mention the replication crisis in medial research, which is a real issue across all fields, but how does this compare to psychology (the authors specialty). The entire clinical process is a way to filter out bad and non reproducible research with actual experimentation and it seems to work fairly well. As bad as the replication crisis is in medicine its far worse in psychology ... perhaps they should clean their own rooms before pointing fingers at others.

Have you considered that not everyone wants to build a hospital?

Arent most states with compulsory voting like, dictatorships with a thin veil of democracy? Like, I know Egypt is an example.

He’s is saying people in marketing and customer service should also help with scientific research

This misses the point of democracy. Democracy isn’t about building a hospital to the standards of architects, it’s about building a hospital to the standards of the people at the hospital, even if that design isn’t what architects want.

[removed]

I always wondered about this as a kid. I also came to my conclusion that it must be the egg. (yes I read your whole article and know this is not your final conclusion.) However now I'll say it depends on if our universe and everything beyond is finite or infinite.

If 'The All/Everything' is infinite then I'd argue that they always both were present at the same time.

Thoughts?

Popper's work has been around, and mainstream in the philosophy of science, almost as long as clinical corruption. If it's not made a difference by now, it's asking a lot to expect it to do so now.

Old article, but is the author complaining about how clinical trials are done or the idea of intellectual property rights. Who knows, because the author doesn’t really get into the details of either. How is “knowledge” “owned”? Is he talking about parents? That is the opposite of owned knowledge, it requires disclosure of what would otherwise be kept secret. Corruption of clinical trials? Is that a common problem? If so how should it be addressed? The author is just going on some sort of rant.

Many people know facts like "peanuts are legumes", "alcohol is a drug" or "chicken nuggets are made of animal flesh". However, some merely recognize these as facts that are true by definition, but seem to not be fully committed to their truth or grasp the consequences. Its like they didn't adopt the fact fully into their actual belief systems. They tend to keep acting like these facts are not true even though they consider them to be true.

I think this may be related to cognitive dissonance.

Are there philosophical terms to describe this phenomenon or is this merely a matter of psychology?

Making voting mandatory may not have the effect you think it does.

If someone is voting to avoid the pénalité, they probably haven’t done much due diligence.