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.
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.