The first part of the post boils down to “medical research is complicated and occasionally failable that’s why we shouldn’t take it into account and instead follow with our gut intuition that organ removal is dangerous”. This is not a valid reasoning, even if you bring up the real problems with scientific process and a couple of apparently ridiculous outputs it produced.
We could use the exact trick to “proove” the opposite conclusion: that one shouldn’t trust their intuitions about the danger of kidney donations. After all our intuitions are known to be failiable! There are visual illusions and congnitive biases and all kind of ways how intuitions are maladpted to modern world.
Or we could use the exact same trick to prove that this trick doesn’t work. After all, using it bring people to all kind of conspiracy theories!
Imperfection of our current best tools to find truth about the world isn’t a reason to switch back to even worse ones. It can be a narrative one builds around actual evidence, to show that there is a better way to do truthseeking and thus we need to switch to it. But you seem to have thought that you didn’t even need any substantial evidence at all. That you can just show that there is research supporting Homeopathy and that’s, somehow proves that kidney donations are bad.
Must I make a parade of citing scientific studies that look at large samples of people who donated a kidney to show the obvious?
Yes you must. Moreover, you must not just cherry pick a couple of studies but do an actual analysis of the problem. You are trying to disprove the existent consensus after all—so engage with the arguments of it, instead of constructing a general fabula why the consensus might be wrong. In his post Scott cited research and tried to correct for possible issues. If you want to bring some new insight you should explain why what he was doing isn’t enough, how the specific studies he appealed to are flawe even after all his best attempts, and why your way of estimating danger is superrior.
The first part of the post boils down to “medical research is complicated and occasionally failable that’s why we shouldn’t take it into account and instead follow with our gut intuition that organ removal is dangerous”. This is not a valid reasoning, even if you bring up the real problems with scientific process and a couple of apparently ridiculous outputs it produced.
We could use the exact trick to “proove” the opposite conclusion: that one shouldn’t trust their intuitions about the danger of kidney donations. After all our intuitions are known to be failiable! There are visual illusions and congnitive biases and all kind of ways how intuitions are maladpted to modern world.
Or we could use the exact same trick to prove that this trick doesn’t work. After all, using it bring people to all kind of conspiracy theories!
Imperfection of our current best tools to find truth about the world isn’t a reason to switch back to even worse ones. It can be a narrative one builds around actual evidence, to show that there is a better way to do truthseeking and thus we need to switch to it. But you seem to have thought that you didn’t even need any substantial evidence at all. That you can just show that there is research supporting Homeopathy and that’s, somehow proves that kidney donations are bad.
Yes you must. Moreover, you must not just cherry pick a couple of studies but do an actual analysis of the problem. You are trying to disprove the existent consensus after all—so engage with the arguments of it, instead of constructing a general fabula why the consensus might be wrong. In his post Scott cited research and tried to correct for possible issues. If you want to bring some new insight you should explain why what he was doing isn’t enough, how the specific studies he appealed to are flawe even after all his best attempts, and why your way of estimating danger is superrior.
Otherwise, your are being substantionless.