Nostr Web Client

Ok, but a judge isn't a scientist, and a judge's legal opinion isn't tantamount to established fact. I'm not weighing in on the details of this issue, but it's dishonest to point to a judge's ruling as some sort objective evidence relating to the empirical truth of the underlying question.

LogicallyMinded 1y ago

Many scientific studies have been discussed and reviewed during the lawsuit to make the case for or against the harm of water #fluoridation. A judge is supposed to be able to understand and interpret those as well as the testimonies of experts. If not, then the judge wouldn’t be competent on the matter. No scientific study constitutes objective evidence by itself because a study can be partial, bias or even fraudulent. You always need a mind to interpret the evidences presented by both parties. The role of a judge is to be as impartial as possible. Also, it’s not particularly the objectivity of the decision I was pointing to but rather the fact that fluoridation of water is now official recognized as harmful (scientific literature was pointing to these conclusions a long time ago).

#Health

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

SLCW 1y ago 💬 2

A judge is not a scientist, and science isn't negated by the opinion of a single layperson. The cure for bad science is good science, and the scientific process conducted by relevant subject-matter experts. A judge has no role in that process, and his opinion is just that. An opinion. Judges are flawed laypersons who are subject to emotion and preexisting beliefs. And that really goes for any one man. That's why scientific knowledge is the product of an established process, including publication and peer review. The opinion of a judge is completely irrelevant with regards to the consensus and conclusions of the scientific body. And the opinion of a judge most certainly does not negate the compendium of knowledge and research on which the consensus regarding fluoride, or any other scientific matter rests.

LogicallyMinded 1y ago

As you said subjectivity goes for any one man including scientists. Consensus is the art of political science, it’s pretty much irrelevant for hard sciences. Most major scientific discoveries are made against the “scientific consensus”.

SLCW 1y ago 💬 2

Well, now you're talking about two different things; scientific discovery, and research-driven consensus. You can't conflate the two and pretend they're one and the same. Scientific discovery can come from many places, research being just one of them. Scientific discovery is irrelevant in this situation as there are no discoveries at the heart of the matter. This is a judicial opinion relating to consensus of established scientific knowledge. It's not a ruling that some new discovery makes the existing body of knowledge irrelevant. That notion itself is absurd. Regardless of this judge's opinion, the established scientific consensus will remain the same until some new research that contradicts the consensus goes through the scientific process, including peer review, and is so compelling as to make what was previously believed moot. There are no shortcuts to this process, nor should there be. The scientific process is purposely rigorous, and that's why it's such an amazing tool for discerning truth. It's certainly not going to be undone by some layperson in a robe rendering a legal opinion. That's just not how it works.

LogicallyMinded 1y ago

I don’t disagree with what you’re saying but the point I’m trying to convey is that similarly to how a judge can be wrong on a scientific matter, the scientific consensus can also be wrong. The consensus often ignores new discoveries that challenge the consensus often for many years if not decades. The peer review process is also far to be impartial. I guess maybe it doesn’t have so much to do with the process itself but how corrupt it has become. To this regards, a decision of a judge is similar. In theory, it’s supposed to be impartial but it practice it can be corrupted for many reasons. I see your point about a judge not being a scientist hence not being able to appreciate a scientific matter but I would disagree that a judge cannot come to an informed decision on a scientific matter. Questioning is a powerful tool for one mind to form an opinion on any matter. The goal is not to become an expert but to gauge the sincerity and trustworthiness of the experts relaying the scientific knowledge.

SLCW 1y ago 💬 2

Science can always be wrong. But the nature of science is that it's self-correcting, and it builds on itself. And when it's wrong, it's very rarely completely wrong. It's usually a particular conclusion that was based on relatively weak evidence is superceded when higher-quality evidence is developed that supports a different conclusion. And it's literally never deemed wrong by the judicial opinion of a single layperson. If the scientific consensus related to fluoride is going to be overturned, it's going to be because some revolutionary, indisputable new evidence is developed by relevant subject-matter experts, and their published research is so compelling, and confirmed through the peer-review process that it forces the entire scientific establishment to rethink the entire multi-decade body of knowledge the current consensus is based on. This is why I say that it's misleading and ultimately irrelevant what some judge says. It has no relevance and no impact on the established science.

LogicallyMinded 1y ago

The judge didn’t overturn the scientific consensus on fluoride. He made it a legally binding fact for the society. Whether or not the judge correctly understood the scientific consensus is another question.

SLCW 1y ago 💬 1

FYI, even if we have a different perspective on the matter, I appreciate the friendly discussion, and I respect your position. I've had some bad experiences trying to engage on these types of topics, but this has been a good chat. I think it's important that people of differing views come together for civil discussion that doesn't involve hostility and personal attacks. We all have something to offer, but if your first instinct is to attack the other person for expressing a view you don't share, you're going to miss out of their perspective, and knowledge. Then, nobody wins. I look forward to talking with you more in the future.

LogicallyMinded 1y ago

Likewise, I’m always up for having my views challenged and challenge other people’s views as long as it remains respectful.