2020-12-16, 07:13 PM
(2020-12-15, 12:39 AM)Hehexd1 Wrote: [ -> ]can you give me a screenshot of Keiths email?
(2020-12-15, 01:03 AM)OmniVersalNexus Wrote: [ -> ]Try sending a pm to Tim. It was a private conversation after all.
Tim has been in touch with me privately, and has let me know that he is unwilling to share the email publicly out of respect for Keith's privacy (an ethical position which I respect, and one to which I adhere myself), but he has gone so far as to share the contents of the email with me privately, and I can confirm that tim's paraphrasing captures the essence of Keith's first sentence in the email, although I think three things should be clarified:
Firstly, Keith stipulated the context of his disbelief in what doctors say as the determination of the truth in cases such as these; it was not the general context - that is, he was not saying, for example, that he does not believe the medical advice of doctors who are treating him (I presume that in that case, he does - in general - believe what his doctors tell him, although we would have to ask him to know for sure).
Secondly, he also implied a further stipulation of the context as the secondhand relaying of what a doctor said. Whether that's integral to his statement though isn't clear to me.
Thirdly, his actual statement was a little less definitive than in tim's paraphrasing.
I've run these clarifications by tim and he's agreeable to them. He's also suggested though that his underlying point be emphasised: that given the absence of access to the surgical notes, the word of the surgeon is the best we have, and it is unreasonable to reject it, and contradictory too when accepting the word of "skeptical" doctors.