Interview with Dr. Henry Bauer - Part 2

We have some examples of "science courts" already (although maybe not in the way Bauer envisions) - scientific advisory panels formed to review all the evidence and make recommendations to policy makers in an open and transparent manner. For example, the National Advisory Committee on Immunization in Canada, the International Panel on Climate Change for the UN, the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee in the US, etc. I previously referred to the reports (with respect to the evidence base) from these kinds of bodies as sources of reliable information, with attention paid to how the body is formed and their independence as well as expertise.

Linda

Linda & Chris:
I discuss the Science Court concept in chapter 12 of Science Is Not What You Think (McFarland 2017), starting with Kantrowitz’s suggestion, continuing through a symposium in 1993 in which Kantrowitz participated (the citation given by Chris was an outcome of that symposium), and going on to describe the quite recent discussions by legal scholars (Jurs, Sevier).
A Science Court would ensure that the opposing experts must directly address one another’s propositions, under cross-examination; and the presiding panel could also enlist the help of other technical experts. An informed opinion could be reached just as in a court of law, by noting which experts make more sense in their interpretation of the available evidence.
A few unofficial try-outs were encouraging and useful, as mentioned in my chapter.

[Laird]

Henry, thank you for your interview, and welcome to the forum.

I hate to start on an awkward note, but as a community we have decided that discussion of alternative views on HIV/AIDS are only permissible in the hidden forum, Non-Psi-Related Scientific Controversies, to which any member can gain access by following the steps in this post.

I ask as a moderator that you either:

1. Move the content of your above post which references HIV/AIDS to the thread in that hidden forum already set up to address your views: Henry Bauer's AIDS-HIV theory. (Noting that you won't be able to view that thread unless/until you follow the steps referenced above).
   
2. Simply delete the content of your above post which references HIV/AIDS.
   

I also ask that nobody respond to that content in this thread.

Thank you for your assistance.

Unless it generates discussion, I will delete this post once action has been taken.

Henry, I am an academic physician specializing in Internal Medicine, now retired. On a number of the topics you mention, I have extensive first-hand knowledge and experience, so I am able to evaluate whether your arguments on those subjects are valid, from the point of view of someone with expertise rather than from ignorance.

The science court paper refers to ideas which are controversial with respect to experts within the field of study. The bulk of the examples used in your interview do not seem to fulfill those criteria, as it is non-experts who regard them as controversial. Other examples, like that of the discovery of the role of H. pylori in gastric ulcers or the nature of the infectious agent in what are now called prion diseases, merely reflect how science changes in response to the strength of the evidence. Science court isn't going to be of much help when there isn't much in the way of evidence to present one way or the other. And once there is, then science court becomes unnecessary.

What you seem to be arguing for, is to find a way to force scientists to treat as valid, controversies manufactured by non-experts from political or ideological concerns. I am interested in examples where this has been a legitimate endeavour - where laypeople identified a valid issue which scientists otherwise ignored. One I was able to come up with was the forced end to the Tuskegee syphilis experiment (http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-55...l#pid10552).

Linda

[Pollux]

Other examples, like that of the discovery of the role of H. pylori in gastric ulcers or the nature of the infectious agent in what are now called prion diseases, merely reflect how science changes in response to the strength of the evidence.

Linda

You know; I had Helicobacter Pylori  for 8 years, and all the arrogant doctors/scientists I talked to said ; "It's all in your head...you are imagining it, and you get stressed about it, You just need to exercise, and just stop drinking coffee, any alcohol, eat meat etc. and everything will be fine.There is absolutely nothing, whatsoever, wrong with your stomach, so rest assure"

I told those different doctors I met about 50 times that I wasn't drinking any coffee, alcohol, or eat read meat, and I did exercise, and I wasn't stressed, but I still had my grave pain and problems with my stomach. But they didn't give a shit, because they had made their arrogant mind up, and I was just some obnoxious querulant patient they could dismiss.

So when the news came that Barry Marshall and Robin Warren found out the Helicobacter Pylori just a year later, and I got my medicine treatment from another doctor 2 years after that, and was symptom free, I actually made an appointment to those arrogant, flippant, doctors I met before, just to tell them to go f*** themselves. They didn't say a word....

Does this arrogant statement; "- It's all in your mind, - you are just imagining it", reminds you of the standpoint amongst scientists in any other particularly area of the scientific world, maybe?

Henry, thank you for your interview, and welcome to the forum.

I hate to start on an awkward note, but as a community we have decided that discussion of alternative views on HIV/AIDS are only permissible in the hidden forum, Non-Psi-Related Scientific Controversies, to which any member can gain access by following the steps in this post.

I ask as a moderator that you either:

1. Move the content of your above post which references HIV/AIDS to the thread in that hidden forum already set up to address your views: Henry Bauer's AIDS-HIV theory. (Noting that you won't be able to view that thread unless/until you follow the steps referenced above).
   
2. Simply delete the content of your above post which references HIV/AIDS.
   

I also ask that nobody respond to that content in this thread.

Thank you for your assistance.

Unless it generates discussion, I will delete this post once action has been taken.

Laird:
I understand and sympathize with the difficulty of keeping internet discussions focused and on topic. But note that the first comment on my interview said "Dr. Bauer loses credibility for his ideas because he clings to HIV/AIDS as an example of the failings of the process".
Please delete that at the same time as you delete my response to it. THANKS.

Henry, I am an academic physician specializing in Internal Medicine, now retired. On a number of the topics you mention, I have extensive first-hand knowledge and experience, so I am able to evaluate whether your arguments on those subjects are valid, from the point of view of someone with expertise rather than from ignorance.

The science court paper refers to ideas which are controversial with respect to experts within the field of study. The bulk of the examples used in your interview do not seem to fulfill those criteria, as it is non-experts who regard them as controversial. Other examples, like that of the discovery of the role of H. pylori in gastric ulcers or the nature of the infectious agent in what are now called prion diseases, merely reflect how science changes in response to the strength of the evidence. Science court isn't going to be of much help when there isn't much in the way of evidence to present one way or the other. And once there is, then science court becomes unnecessary.

What you seem to be arguing for, is to find a way to force scientists to treat as valid, controversies manufactured by non-experts from political or ideological concerns. I am interested in examples where this has been a legitimate endeavour - where laypeople identified a valid issue which scientists otherwise ignored. One I was able to come up with was the forced end to the Tuskegee syphilis experiment (http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-55...l#pid10552).

Linda

My view of a Science Court is for help primarily to policy makers, under today's conditions, not 50 years ago when Kantrowitz suggested such a thing. Please read the full discussion in my book, otherwise we cannot communicate meaningfully I can't repeat all that here.

[Laird]

Laird:
I understand and sympathize with the difficulty of keeping internet discussions focused and on topic. But note that the first comment on my interview said "Dr. Bauer loses credibility for his ideas because he clings to HIV/AIDS as an example of the failings of the process".
Please delete that at the same time as you delete my response to it. THANKS.

Linda? Are you willing to edit that comment out of your response? It seems like a fair request, seeing that Henry is unable to respond to it here.

You are of course both welcome to debate this in the hidden forum.

Henry, I am an academic physician specializing in Internal Medicine, now retired. On a number of the topics you mention, I have extensive first-hand knowledge and experience, so I am able to evaluate whether your arguments on those subjects are valid, from the point of view of someone with expertise rather than from ignorance.

The science court paper refers to ideas which are controversial with respect to experts within the field of study. The bulk of the examples used in your interview do not seem to fulfill those criteria, as it is non-experts who regard them as controversial. Other examples, like that of the discovery of the role of H. pylori in gastric ulcers or the nature of the infectious agent in what are now called prion diseases, merely reflect how science changes in response to the strength of the evidence. Science court isn't going to be of much help when there isn't much in the way of evidence to present one way or the other. And once there is, then science court becomes unnecessary.

What you seem to be arguing for, is to find a way to force scientists to treat as valid, controversies manufactured by non-experts from political or ideological concerns. I am interested in examples where this has been a legitimate endeavour - where laypeople identified a valid issue which scientists otherwise ignored. One I was able to come up with was the forced end to the Tuskegee syphilis experiment (http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-55...l#pid10552).

Linda

Dr. Bauer,

In responding to a post such as this, it should be noted that Linda is under the distinct impression that to have a truly valuable response to any sort of topic, you must be an "expert", which in her eyes seems to be limited to those with advanced degrees in a subject. Certainly, she will attempt to say this is a mischaracterization, but if you have the time to go through her posts in the link she provided (and elsewhere), it becomes readily apparent that that is the case. 

What Linda seems to have trouble coming to grips with, at least with PSI and its related topics, is that the people she seems to consider experts (ie neuroscientists, neurologists, and researchers from related fields) are not in any way experts. The vast majority of them have conducted no research whatsoever into PSI topics, and many/most of them haven't even seriously considered the research done by the actual experts, who Linda might consider "laypeople" if they fall outside her self-defined scope of expertise.  

While of course expert input is critical and necessary, being an expert in one field certainly does not provide you with range to claim expertise or knowledge to pontificate on a topic which you have not seriously considered or done research in, and certainly someone like, say, Tim, may be as or more qualified to speak on NDE research than any neuroscientist who claims such a thing could not possibly be real without conducting their own research or really and honestly considering the NDE research that exists, whether or not it falls short of some general scientific standard. It is exactly for this reason that Linda has received so few responses on her linked thread, I'm sure, because it is obvious on the face of it that it's purely absurd to suggest that to have a legitimately informed opinion on a topic and to provide meaningful input, you must really be an expert. It is essentially a thinly veiled appeal to authority argument, and one that has little merit outside of the obvious importance of expert opinion - because we can't all have advanced degrees and do thousands of hours of research in every field we're interested in researching.

Any intelligent and informed person can read a science paper and determine, with legitimacy, whether they find the reasoning in the discussion and conclusion sections of that paper to be sensical and reasonable based on what the data and results suggest, provided that they are well versed in the topic and informed/smart enough to understand what was going on. There are lots and lots of really smart people who have degrees and careers outside the sciences, and likely could have gotten those degrees had they pursued them. Does it make sense to essentially disregard their opinions (which, do not be fooled, is in essence what Linda seems to think should be the case, based on a large number of her comments on this forum) simply because they did not pursue that career or degree professionally? I would say certainly not. There is obvious necessity in expert input and ideas - so obvious that it seems silly to need to say such a thing. However, it seems equally or nearly as obvious to me that one need not be an expert under my impression of Linda's definition of the term to valuably and genuinely provide insight and reason regarding a scientific topic, again provided that you are informed. As stated earlier, regarding PSI research and experts, Linda is hoist by her own petard in suggesting that the appropriate experts to analyze PSI studies are those with degrees and experience in neuroscience and the like - given that the vast majority of them, for a variety of reasons, have little or no experience in the existing research. There are many people with degrees in math, law, or other scientific fields who are likely substantially more qualified to discuss those topics, given their actual intimate familiarity with the research, than Linda's so-called "experts" who have a background in brain research and processes that distinctly have assumed since their inception the reductiveness and materiality of consciousness. Many, many people on this forum have degrees and advanced degrees in the sciences and related fields, and I think it narrow minded, short sighted, and abhorrently biased toward appeals to authority to suggest that such people aren't qualified to opine with legitimacy on a wide range of the topics we discuss. Of course, I'm not suggesting the scientific world at large come to PQ to be enlightened - only that the opinions formed by those here are not delegitimized by a lack of "expertise" or an advanced degree in a related scientific field, especially as determined by Linda.

Linda? Are you willing to edit that comment out of your response? It seems like a fair request, seeing that Henry is unable to respond to it here.

You are of course both welcome to debate this in the hidden forum.

I edited it earlier today.

Linda