>> 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.