I’m not suggesting that that liability law is the solution to everything. I just want to point out that other models exist, and sometimes they have even worked.
I don’t understand the line of logic here. Showing that other models exist and finding a few examples where they worked isn’t a compelling reason.
To change would require that the new model works significantly more often, with all the same real world conditions as the status-quo model.
If their success rate is roughly the same, or even worse, then I can’t see any reason to change.
To change would require that the new model works significantly more often, with all the same real world conditions as the status-quo model.
Isn’t your position infinitely conservative? If you have to demonstrate the efficacy of an alternative to that standard before you’re allowed to try the alternative, then you can’t ever try any alternatives.
Or put differently, why demand more from the alternative than from the status quo? We could instead demand that the status quo (e.g. the FDA’s ultra-slow drug approval process) justify itself, and when it can’t (as per the post above), replace it with whatever seems like the best idea at the time.
Isn’t your position infinitely conservative? If you have to demonstrate the efficacy of an alternative to that standard before you’re allowed to try the alternative, then you can’t ever try any alternatives.
Did you misread? I wasn’t commenting at all on experimentation.
To change would require that the new model works significantly more often, with all the same real world conditions as the status-quo model.
I don’t think I misread, but I’ll admit I don’t understand. My point was that the quoted requirement sounds like it would make it impossible to ever replace or reform an entrenched paradigm like the review-and-approval model, or an entrenched institution like the FDA.
Because the only way to fulfill the requirement is to demonstrate that someone has already found a better solution and been allowed to implement it, which this requirement would forbid. Even if you’re allowed to experiment, the requirement sounds too stringent to ever admit experimental evidence as sufficient.
Even looking at the case of ‘replacing’ or ‘reforming’ the FDA entirely, thankfully there is more than one authority, or country, in the world? And no one has a monopoly over humankind?
I’m not really sure how to explain this better, but here’s a try:
It’s clearly possible for some organizational structure, better then the FDA circa 2023, to come into existence at some point in the future and demonstrate that with concrete evidence and so on.
Of course it’s theoretically possible for a supermajority of folks in the US to keep on ignoring all of it, but if that happens too many times then the US will be outcompeted and cease to exist eventually. So there’s a self-correction dynamic built in for humankind, even in the most extreme of scenarios.
I don’t understand the line of logic here. Showing that other models exist and finding a few examples where they worked isn’t a compelling reason.
To change would require that the new model works significantly more often, with all the same real world conditions as the status-quo model.
If their success rate is roughly the same, or even worse, then I can’t see any reason to change.
Isn’t your position infinitely conservative? If you have to demonstrate the efficacy of an alternative to that standard before you’re allowed to try the alternative, then you can’t ever try any alternatives.
Or put differently, why demand more from the alternative than from the status quo? We could instead demand that the status quo (e.g. the FDA’s ultra-slow drug approval process) justify itself, and when it can’t (as per the post above), replace it with whatever seems like the best idea at the time.
Did you misread? I wasn’t commenting at all on experimentation.
I don’t think I misread, but I’ll admit I don’t understand. My point was that the quoted requirement sounds like it would make it impossible to ever replace or reform an entrenched paradigm like the review-and-approval model, or an entrenched institution like the FDA.
Because the only way to fulfill the requirement is to demonstrate that someone has already found a better solution and been allowed to implement it, which this requirement would forbid. Even if you’re allowed to experiment, the requirement sounds too stringent to ever admit experimental evidence as sufficient.
Even looking at the case of ‘replacing’ or ‘reforming’ the FDA entirely, thankfully there is more than one authority, or country, in the world? And no one has a monopoly over humankind?
I’m not really sure how to explain this better, but here’s a try:
It’s clearly possible for some organizational structure, better then the FDA circa 2023, to come into existence at some point in the future and demonstrate that with concrete evidence and so on.
Of course it’s theoretically possible for a supermajority of folks in the US to keep on ignoring all of it, but if that happens too many times then the US will be outcompeted and cease to exist eventually. So there’s a self-correction dynamic built in for humankind, even in the most extreme of scenarios.
Liability insurance has a mixed record for sure. Landlords and doctors ok not great in terms of safety
I would read a longpost about where and how and when and why liability insurance has succeeded or failed