iiioiia t1_irf8p2s wrote
Reply to comment by CatJamarchist in “Scientific progress is thwarted by the ownership of knowledge.” How Karl Popper’s philosophy of science can overcome clinical corruption. by IAI_Admin
> What does this even mean? How can a system be 0.01% rigged?
Imagine a system composed of X departments or modules - simply divide the number of rigged ones by the total and you have your ratio - of course, to do this correctly one would need a flawless algorithm for objectively identifying rigged-ness, but most people would balk at that so they use heuristics or subjective algorithms that are claimed/implied to be objective.
> 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?
No, I am simply saying that if it is in fact rigged, then it is rigged.
EDIT: actually, this is technically incorrect - in my previous comment, I made no assertions, but rather asked two questions about your "facts" (which you didn't answer, for some reason I imagine). EDIT 2: I was wrong again! You are not the original poster...it is /u/TheTrueLordHumungous who has yet to answer. (Man, this is a lot more complicated than it seems.)
> That doesn't make much sense.
Well, one way it could "make sense" is that if people with decision making power have financial or ~personal interests in decisions.
> 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....
"likely" is a heuristic prediction with an unknown truth value - I prefer to think tautologically: the level of rigged-ness of a system is equal to the level to which the system is rigged - this is better because it cannot possibly be incorrect.
> ...which does not represent the system.
Is this to say that there are zero corrupt individuals in the system?
TheTrueLordHumungous t1_irfce1o wrote
> who > has yet to > answer.
Calm down champ, I have a life.
iiioiia t1_irfd9cr wrote
> Calm down
?
CatJamarchist t1_irfkksq wrote
>Imagine a system...
Yeah I get what you're doing here - but you're reducing the 'rigging' down to smaller active chunks that are not necessarily representative of the system. These chunks are far more dependent on personal corruption than systemic 'rigging'. A 'rigged' system implies that the system is specifically set up in a way to produce erroneous results. A small team or department producing erroneous results for personal profit motives, is quite a bit different then systemic rigging - primarily because the system would want it try remove the offending people, because the system itself does not approve of 'rigging'. And we don't have to imagine a system either - there are lots of drug regulatory agencies, from the FDA to Heath Canada, to the EMA that we can examine to assess this rigging claim.
>I am simply saying that if it is in fact rigged, then it is rigged.
I literally don't know what you mean by 'rigged' in this context. Do you know how complicated the data production and regulatory requirements are to pass something like FDA clearance? Because I do, it just so happens to be a large part of my area of expertise. Just saying that 'the approval of drug X was rigged' is an incredibly vauge statement. There's a thousand different things that a company must produce and provide to a regulatory agency like the FDA to be verified prior to drug approval - there's many ways that companies can 'fudge' or 'massage' data to get it to say what the company wants prior to FDA submission.
>the level of rigged-ness of a system is equal to the level to which the system is rigged - this is better because it cannot possibly be incorrect.
Sure it can. You have to be very clear of what is 'rigging' and what is not 'rigging' - you have to define your terms of they're to be 'correct' or applicable.
Edit: furthermore, 'rigging' implies intentionality behind the decision - which is an accustaion that requires evidence. Just becuase the FDA approves a drug that otherwise wouldn't/shouldn't have been approved is not evidence of rigging, it could be, for exmaple, a mistake, or there may be other confounding variables.
>Is this to say that there are zero corrupt individuals in the system?
Of course not - I'm saying that there's a dramatic difference between Bob the quality control officer at the FDA allowing a drug to pass some quality parameter when company X fudged a data set error rate from 12% to 9%, passing the 10% error threshold set by the FDA, because Bob is friends with Tim, a designer at company X
And systemic rigging that specifically allows for certain companies or individuals to skate by regulatory constrains without question becuase the regulatory agency has some special interest in that company.
Just becuase there are individual corrupt actors acting within a system does not mean that the system is systemically rigged - it's not designed to be rigged. Especially when, if the system was aware of the individual corruption, it would very likely act to expunge that corruption.
iiioiia t1_irfp55i wrote
> Yeah I get what you're doing here....
To some degree ("get" is not a binary).
> ...but you're reducing the 'rigging' down to smaller active chunks that are not necessarily representative of the system.
Correct - do you "get" why I am doing this?
> These chunks are far more dependent on personal corruption than systemic 'rigging'.
A reasonable speculation by common standards, although it is framed as (and perhaps even perceived as) a false dichotomy, so perhaps not likely to be necessarily correct.
> A 'rigged' system implies that the system is specifically set up in a way to produce erroneous results.
Very true! We could choose a different word if you'd like, but I will apply the same strict epistemology to that.
> A small team or department producing erroneous results for personal profit motives, is quite a bit different then systemic rigging - primarily because the system would want it try remove the offending people, because the system itself does not approve of 'rigging'.
Do you have knowledge of what is actually going on, or are you speculating? "does not 'approve of'" is a conveniently slippery/subjective way to consider it.
> And we don't have to imagine a system either...
It is not technically necessary, but to get to the level of detail you are making assertions about, imagination is necessary.
> ...there are lots of drug regulatory agencies, from the FDA to Heath Canada, to the EMA that we can examine to assess this rigging claim.
And the quality of such examinations is equal to the quality of the examinations, which is unknown to you and me (which is where imagination makes its appearance).
> I literally don't know what you mean by 'rigged' in this context.
That's the beauty about humans - we do not use precise definitions for words - not only do we not, people are generally severely opposed to them. I prefer them, so if you'd like to decide upon a definition together, I would be game.
> Do you know how complicated the data production and regulatory requirements are to pass something like FDA clearance? Because I do....
What definition are you using for "know" here?
> Just saying that 'the approval of drug X was rigged' is an incredibly vauge statement.
Correct - one among many vague/ambiguous/subjective statements involved in this conversation.
> There's a thousand different things that a company must produce and provide to a regulatory agency like the FDA to be verified prior to drug approval - there's many ways that companies can 'fudge' or 'massage' data to get it to say what the company wants prior to FDA submission.
Agree! This, and many other things.
>> the level of rigged-ness of a system is equal to the level to which the system is rigged - this is better because it cannot possibly be incorrect.
> Sure it can. You have to be very clear of what is 'rigging' and what is not 'rigging' - you have to define your terms of they're to be 'correct' or applicable.
"Rigging" is largely subjective. In addition to this, you also have a measurement problem, and and an epistemology problem (like: unknown unknowns), and a consciousness problem.
> Edit: furthermore, 'rigging' implies intentionality behind the decision - which is an accustaion that requires evidence.
Should require evidence...and this applies to all the claims you made here today. Lucky for you, presenting (epistemically sound and logically conclusive) evidence for claims on the internet is not only not required, it is almost never done!
> Just becuase the FDA approves a drug that otherwise wouldn't/shouldn't have been approved is not evidence of rigging, it could be, for exmaple, a mistake, or there may be other confounding variables.
Correct - it is kind of like the difference between lying and speaking untruthfully.
>>> 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.
>> Is this to say that there are zero corrupt individuals in the system?
> Of course not - I'm saying that there's a dramatic difference between Bob the quality control officer at the FDA allowing a drug to pass some quality parameter when company X fudged a data set error rate from 12% to 9%, passing the 10% error threshold set by the FDA, because Bob is friends with Tim, a designer at company X
But, if there are in fact corrupt individuals within the system, would saying that the system is partially corrupt not actually be a more accurate representation than saying it is not corrupted? (Replace "corrupt" with "imperfect" if you prefer comprehensiveness as I do).
> And systemic rigging that specifically allows for certain companies or individuals to skate by regulatory constrains without question becuase the regulatory agency has some special interest in that company.
I wonder if this has ever happened, even once. 🤔
> Just becuase there are individual corrupt actors acting within a system does not mean that the system is systemically rigged...
Would you mind pasting in a pseudocode representation of your actual cognitive implementation of isRigged()? I am interested to see the variables and logic (the general form, and if you are using binary or ternary) you are using.
> ...it's not designed to be rigged.
This has no bearing on whether it is actually rigged (but it may have bearing on perceptions of it).
> Especially when, if the system was aware of the individual corruption, it would very likely act to expunge that corruption.
Actually, it would likely not (note: I literally just made that up - when in Rome, act like a Roman and all that).
CatJamarchist t1_irfy8dy wrote
Yeah so your response just makes me think you don't really know or understand how regulatory agencies are set up
>Correct - do you "get" why I am doing this?
Yes, and I think your conclusion is wrong.
>reasonable speculation
It's not just speculation - these agencies are specially set up in such a way to produce multiple independent verification steps. The approval process is not linear.
>Do you have knowledge of what is actually going on, or are you speculating?
I have specific knowledge - I directly produce, assess and report data that is to be submitted to the FDA, and I read and respond to the replies the FDA provides to the data I submit
>"does not 'approve of'" is a conveniently...
I mean that it's quite literally illegal. People end up in jail for corrupting these processes. And there are many hurdles set up in these institutions to catch erroneous results.
>> And we don't have to imagine a system either...
>It is not technically necessary, but to get to the level of detail you are making assertions about, imagination is necessary.
Not really.. your imagined scenario isn't all that applicable, because it doesn't represent the actual set up of these agencies well.
>>that we can examine to assess this rigging claim.
>And the quality of such examinations is equal to the quality of the examinations, which is unknown to you and me
This is not unknown to me. I'm quite familiar with the regulatory set up, and quality control of all three of the agencies noted.
>That's the beauty about humans - we do not use precise definitions for words
In science, precise definitions are what it's all about - so you should be careful accusing a highly precise, well defined and regulated system with imprecise language.
>so if you'd like to decide upon a definition together, I would be game.
You're mostly just talking about corruption from what I can tell.
For exmaple, a system is rigged when the results are pre-determined - a rigged voting machine is when the machine is programmed to record a vote for candidate X, even when a ballot is submitted with candidate W, Y or Z selected.
A system is corrupt when the results are changed after the fact to reflect a more desired outcome. A corrupt voting system is when the machine accurately records the ballot results, and then someone goes in after the fact to change the results to suit their purposes.
A rigged system can not produce good data - it's designed to produce data of a specific nature.
A corrupt system can produce good data, that data may then be corrupted after the fact for some specific purpose.
>What definition are you using for "know" here?
Not sure what you mean - you quoted a section where I'm asking you if you 'know' about the structure of regulatory agencies - in asking if you're aware of how they're set up, organized and how they assess information.
If you're asking about the agency 'knowing' about a corrupt individual - I'm talking about 'instututional awareness' which is essentially enough people in positions of influce who are aware of the situation and can act on it.
>you also have a measurement problem, and and an epistemology problem
... Why? The agencies and people who staff them are well-aware if these hurdles, and things are set up in such away to avoid these issues as much as possible.
>Correct - it is kind of like the difference between lying and speaking untruthfully.
No... Actually there can be very sound and well founded reasons why an agency may approve the use of a specific drug - even if that drug has not cleared all of the traditionally required hurdles. It happens all the time, there's an entire 'emergncy use' regulatory system to address this.
>would saying that the system is partially corrupt not actually be a more accurate representation than saying it is not corrupted?
Sure - it's much more accurate to describe this stuff in terms of %corruption rather than %rigged, IMO at least.
>I wonder if this has ever happened, even once. 🤔
Again, corruption =/= rigging
>Would you mind pasting in a pseudocode representation of your actual cognitive implementation of isRigged()?
No. I'm not a programmer or a philosopher, I don't work with absolutes.
>This has no bearing on whether it is actually rigged
It absolutely does - see the example with voting machines above.
>Actually, it would likely not (note: I literally just made that up
Yeah you're just wrong here. These agencies have incentive structures to correct themselves, they're not corporations.
iiioiia t1_irg0bv8 wrote
> Yeah so your response just makes me think you don't really know or understand how regulatory agencies are set up
Do you realize I covered this already, in a way that does not require me to have in-depth knowledge of how regulatory agencies are set up (something that you may have "Expert" knowledge of, but not comprehensive Knowledge (JTB) of)?
>> Correct - do you "get" why I am doing this? > > > > Yes, and I think your conclusion is wrong.
Can you tell me why I am doing this?
CatJamarchist t1_irg4v7j wrote
>Do you realize I covered this already,
You did? Where?
>in a way that does not require me to have in-depth knowledge of how regulatory agencies are set up
Why do you think this? If your assumptions about how the regulation is enforced is wrong, why do you think you'll be able to accurately assess how they perform, and whether that performance is 'rigged' or not?
>but not comprehensive Knowledge
Obviously I'd argue that I do have a comprehensive knowledge, becauae it's my job to have comprehensive knowledge.
>Can you tell me why I am doing this?
As far as I can tell - to explain how if, for example, in an agency with 10 departments, 1 of those departments is 'rigged' the agency is therefore 10% rigged. And so when asked the question "is the agency rigged" and looking for a binary yes/no answer. The answer is 'Yes - the agency is 'rigged'' - becuase 10% is greater than 0%.
As I explained before, I think 'rigged' is used poorly here becuase it implies a structure that pre-determines results, instead of results being corrupted after the fact. The entire set up of a regulatory agency is to specifically avoid pre-determining results.
iiioiia t1_irj4iv8 wrote
>> Do you realize I covered this already, > > > > You did? Where?
Here: > > > These chunks are far more dependent on personal corruption than systemic 'rigging'. > > A reasonable speculation by common standards, although it is framed as (and perhaps even perceived as) a false dichotomy, so perhaps not likely to be necessarily correct. > > > A 'rigged' system implies that the system is specifically set up in a way to produce erroneous results. > > Very true! We could choose a different word if you'd like, but I will apply the same strict epistemology to that. > > > A small team or department producing erroneous results for personal profit motives, is quite a bit different then systemic rigging - primarily because the system would want it try remove the offending people, because the system itself does not approve of 'rigging'. > > Do you have knowledge of what is actually going on, or are you speculating? "does not 'approve of'" is a conveniently slippery/subjective way to consider it. > > > And we don't have to imagine a system either... > > It is not technically necessary, but to get to the level of detail you are making assertions about, imagination is necessary. > > > ...there are lots of drug regulatory agencies, from the FDA to Heath Canada, to the EMA that we can examine to assess this rigging claim. > > And the quality of such examinations is equal to the quality of the examinations, which is unknown to you and me (which is where imagination makes its appearance).
You are asserting that you posses comprehensive, fine-grained knowledge of what happens across the entire spectrum of scientific activities. I am talking about the entirety of the practice of science, you are talking about abstract definitions and intentions.
Actual science deals with accuracy and precision, and I am regularly told that scientists are the experts at this sort of thinking. I would like to see a demonstration of that expertise.
>> in a way that does not require me to have in-depth knowledge of how regulatory agencies are set up
> Why do you think this?
Logic, epistemology, abstraction, decomposition, knowledge of psychology & consciousness, etc.
> If your assumptions about how the regulation is enforced is wrong....
What assumption are you referring to here? Are you sure you aren't referring to your assumption about my (supposed) assumption?
Let's test the quality of your observational abilities: quote the text containing the assumption you are referring to.
> ...why do you think you'll be able to accurately assess how they perform, and whether that performance is 'rigged' or not?
I have made no claim that I am able to accurately assess how they perform - you on the other hand, have, but you seem oddly treluctant to explain how it is you know (as opposed to believe) that your assessments are accurate, in fact.
>>>>...but you're reducing the 'rigging' down to smaller active chunks that are not necessarily representative of the system.
>>> Correct - do you "get" why I am doing this?
>> Can you tell me why I am doing this?
> As far as I can tell...
Uh oh! Do you see your error?
> ...to explain how if, for example, in an agency with 10 departments, 1 of those departments is 'rigged' the agency is therefore 10% rigged.
Note that I also said: "Imagine a system composed of X departments or modules - simply divide the number of rigged ones by the total and you have your ratio - of course, to do this correctly one would need a flawless algorithm for objectively identifying rigged-ness, but most people would balk at that so they use heuristics or subjective algorithms that are claimed/implied to be objective."
> And so when asked the question "is the agency rigged" and looking for a binary yes/no answer.
If you are thinking in binary, that is part of your problem. I am certainly not looking for a binary answer - in fact, a non-binary answer is what I am curious whether you can generate!
> The answer is 'Yes - the agency is 'rigged'' - becuase 10% is greater than 0%.
See " Note that I also said..." above.
> As I explained before, I think 'rigged' is used poorly here....
I noted some issues with the classificaion....in fact, that is a fundamental component of my point!
>>>... becuase it implies a structure that pre-determines results, instead of results being corrupted after the fact.
That is only one possibility, there are many others. Malice is not even necessary.
> The entire set up of a regulatory agency is to specifically avoid pre-determining results.
Agreed, and the degree to which they are successful at it is equal to the degree that they are successful - you are expressing your opinion on the matter, I am interested in whether you can realize and acknowledge that this is what is happening here.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments