oh you mean like how gov used to until the wealthy lobbied them out of it?

again, useless middle men. Actually no they are worse then useless as they hold research back massively by only funding grants that will generate a ROI.

commodification of science is slowing it massively while we waste billions making new iphones.

>How could it possibly not be a factor, given human nature? What other explaination would you propose for the scientific vetting of oxycontin?

you already made up your mind apparently so i dont know why your here.

if you cant think of any possible reasons oxy was passed other then money then god help you (its not like oxy has any medical applications. ffs using your logic all painkillers are designed to make money. fuck me you probably think pharma likes cancer and wouldnt cure it if they could).

'drugs are bad m'kay' isnt an argument and neither is shameless appeals to conspiracy.

lol right because our world gives 2 shits about resource efficiency, ah naivety is gold.

we couldnt careless about wasting resources, indeed our entire system is setup explicitly to waste resources accumulating capital.

'efficiency' as used by economists has never meant 'efficiency of resources distribution' it means 'efficiency of capital accumulation'.

in what possible way is burning 1000s of tons of food every year to maintain a floor price a efficient use of resources? it sure is an efficient way of generating 'value' but is one the most inefficient ways possible for handling food distribution.

our society has never cared about minimizing loss or waste, frankly its entirely fine with maximizing losses and waste if it makes private profit.

I don’t understand the point of this pedantic argument.

so in other words you might.

the fact you had to qualify it means you were wrong.

>How can a system be 0.01% rigged?

well look at US 'democracy' i would argue its 1% rigged (arbitrary number but still).

if the people who fund both political parties want certain outcomes and pay both parties to provide it (say lower corporate taxes and larger subsidies) and the people then vote attempting to increase corporate taxes only to have either victor lower them would that not be an example of how you can rig a system with only 1% rigging?

personally i think voting is rigged in this very way, parties do what their doors want first and foremost while the people are desperate and stupid enough to believe they have any actual say. no actual 'rigging' just mutual self-interest by those with the most say over society.

I'm sorry, but you were the reductionist there. Objecting to the proposal of a system seeking to minimize corruption by stating it would be too ressource expensive, when in fact, in no way is the ressource cost a limiting or major factor here.

It is entirely possible for a society to exist without corruption without any records existing. It may be unrealistic in today's society, it does not mean it is impossible. As I said, ressource management is merely an aspect of the solution, better record-keeping is a plus, but they can always be falsified, numbers fudged, accounting mistakes made.

As for the example of corruption not existing despite any records keeping, you just have to think about a small hunter-gatherer community. What would corruption looks like in such a society? Assuming the existence of a patriarchal group with "traditionnal" hierarchy, an example of corruption would be a young hunter killing a prey, eating parts of the liver before bringing it back. This is corruption because the tribe leader would be the one to have first pick, and distribution rights over prized meat & offal. The youngin just bypassed that and declared that his arrow damaged the liver, hence why there is a part missing.

Corruption is a moral, conceptual problem, not a physical, material problem. It exists because there exist a predetermined code of conduct, rules to follow and social order, and that some people decide not to abide by it.
It is entirely a social problem, with ways to attempt to manage it that can manifest in the physical world, with records-keeping, but is not dependent on the existence of such records keeping, but purely on the moral fiber of the population.

If taking money from the coffers while you are in charge is the expected behavior in a society, can you really say you are being corrupt by doing it?

You can't just reduce corruption & fighting it to a material problem, when it is a much bigger problem of how human being acts in society & how this rewards him.

Would you call them scientists?

> They do not contribute to science.

They literally directly fund it

But it's not inherent to science. That's a clerical issue. You can conduct science publicly just as well as you can privately, nothing necessitates private organizations to being essential to creation of new science.

>In the US the public is rarely in favour of spending tax dollars on science.

Do you think we produce more science through private institutions than public ones?

Good article.

I believe the answer to be the chicken egg. The very precise point of evolution where a life form became a chicken surely did not happen during a chickens lifetime, but when the chicken is being made - in the egg.

Therefore the egg containing the first chicken must have came first, if it was to be the chicken that came first then the evolutionary process of developing the chicken must have happened to the chicken while it was alive. This couldn’t have happened.

This is all due to my knowledge of evolution and reproduction. Which is incredibly close to absolute zero fyi.

> there exists a mechanism for avoiding its rigors and it has been exploited rather openly and documented in court cases with opioids most famously

How were the clinical trials for opioid pain killers exploited? Are opioid pain killers not effective for reducing pain?

>So unless I am given further proof that the trial system was designed such that big pharma can bypass it at a cost, I am saying that it isnt rigged. [emph. mine]

Yup - exactly my point.

We get into that a little bit in that longer reply thread. It's an especially prevalent concern in drug regulation, becuase in the courts, one bad decision can produce a 'defective product' - but with pharmaceuticals, there's so many layers of review, and different types of review to clear before the product is able to be commercialized.

It absolutely does. We pick and choose how we frame the problem and alienate people with fringe framing. During 'normal' science this is stabilizing but once it gets into crisis science it becomes regressive and you can't avoid that because we don't know what phase we're in until after the fact. This is fundamental.

> would you consider the label to be objectively accurate (aka: True):

Yes I would consider the label objectively true assuming it fell within the bounds of some purity standard.

It's a play on a rotten apple spoils the bunch. If 1 trial out of 10000 gets an automatic pass, then the system is rigged, that sort of thing.

The problem here is what "being rigged" means. It's not enough to have a flaw in the system, the system must be intentionally designed to give unequal outcomes.

So unless I am given further proof that the trial system was designed such that big pharma can bypass it at a cost, I am saying that it isnt rigged.

Except the funding that makes it possible... Is this a challenging concept for you?

In the US the public is rarely in favour of spending tax dollars on science. People are constantly calling for NASA's budget to be reduced as they see no purpose in the science they do. Now try and replace all the private dollars with government ones and see how that's received.

Kuhn doesn't suggest that this happens in practice. Whether it actually does is another issue.

I disagree, you need tangible resources to record, interpret and apply information. There is no process that perfectly and permanently records information, thus to just maintain fidelity, it requires analysis and re-recording of the information, but this assuming perfect formulation of information to begin with, which is also not the case. To deny this is unhelpful reductionism and culture is part of the problem, but by solving that the problem still stands.

You can't enforce belief structures?

Paradigms aren't enforced, they are simply belief-structures.

[deleted]

>Complains about people not understanding the paradox of tolerance while not understanding it themselves

Reddit moment

The paradox only refers to violence specifically. What is intolerance? Intolerance is the refusal to engage in dialogue to influence society and instead turn to violence, agression on others & terrorism.

A tolerant society indeed cannot tolerate such acts, because they indeed threaten its very existence. As such, they must be punished appropriately under the law.

There is no extension of this principle to ideas, because doing so results directly in the breach of the right to freedom of speech, expression, thoughts, etc.

When you punch a Nazi, you are being the intolerable intolerant, because you are abandoning dialogue and resorting to violence. When that Nazi is gonna punch a Jew, he will be the intolerable intolerant, and appropriately punished for assault.

The ACLU in the 1940s or 50s defended the KKK and nazis going into a Jewish neighborhood holding a rally saying how they should kill all Jews and fucking won the case. Because such is Freedom of Speech. At the rally, there was no violence nor imminent threat of harm to any individual. They went there, spoke, and left.

And we protect that because we want to protect communist going at the door of Wall Street and protesting against the existence of the rich and the whole system.

You cannot be a liberal society when you abandon liberal principles. You are how you act, the end does not justify the means, and unjust/evil means can never result in good in the end. The only way forward is to focus on establishing just means, and the end will follow.

The enforcement of paradigms is corruption, especially in the crisis phase of science because at that point you're not "doing" science, you're regulating it.

Yeah, those are middlemen. Bureaucrats. They do not contribute to science.