Carl writes:
> Laypersons and even scientists outside their narrow specialty are simply
not
> equipped to understand and judge disputes involving advanced technologies.
I think it is a moot point. While the empirical content of specialized disciplines obviously differ, the basic structure of scientific theory i.e. the concept of cause and effect, input and output of a process and a mathematical function relating the two, the notion of probability and analytical reasoning are common to all sciences. I have no problem understanding the concept of medical treatment that I am undergoing i.e. the cause of the condition, the testing procedures, the associated risk factor, the probability of the outcome etc. I may need a glossary to understand specialized terminology, but I have no problem understanding models they describe.
A good analogy is a map of Europe and a map of Africa - they empirical contents are very much different and those familiar with one may not be familiar with the other. But map making uses similar logic to model physical properties and relations, such as location, terrain features, distances, altitudes, etc. so anyone who understand that model should not have problems understanding physical reality underlying it. HE may not be an expert in, but he can understand its basic features.
So specialization has nothing to do with comprehension of specialized disciplines. If there is a comprehension problem, it is for altogether different reason - the ubiquity of bullshit in everyday discourse, including science. Bullshit is defined as a form of speech that disregards the truth function altogether (i.e. it does not care whether it is true of false), but instead is concerned exclusively with the instrumental function of the act of speech i.e. the impression it makes on the audience. In Plain English, bullshit is an act of speech (or writing) formed and uttered solely because the speaker expects it to have a certain effect on his audience e.g. to evoke a certain emotional reaction or certain behavior, regardless whether the message of that act is true or false, or of that has any empirical meaning at all.
For example a statement "capitalism is killing an average person" qualifies as bullshit because it does not have any clear empirical meaning (i.e. it can mean many things, or nothing in particular), and as such has no truth function (i.e. one cannot tell whether it is true or false). The statement is uttered solely to express certain emotion of the speaker and possibly to evoke a similar emotion in the listener. I would say that most, perhaps 75 to 99 or so percent of public acts of speech in the US qualify as bullshit. Commercial speech, politics and pop-kultur are particularly bad in that respect, but science - especially social science - and law are also heavily loaded with bullshit.
So the reason people have difficulty in understanding what is presented to them as science is not because of the beyond comprehension complexity of its logic, but because of the heavy load of bullshit. I suspect that in the case in question, Mercks' lawyers used bullshit to confuse the jury about the science behind Vioxx, whereas the plaintiff's lawyer used bullshit to manipulate jurors' emotions, especially resentment of big organizations and sympathy for the "little guy." The latter proved to be more effective but it does not change the basic fact that it was bullshit.
Jim Devine:
> If Merck had told people about all of the negative side-effects ahead
> of time in an effective way, the issue of the "the risk/benefit
> profile of some whiz-bang new pharmaceutical" would have been
> irrelevant in court. (Or course, Vioxx wouldn't have sold as well
> either.) The only reason that profile was relevant was that it had
> been hidden from users.
It is my experience that drug and medical therapies that I have experienced first hand involve pretty decent explanation of the risk, including what is known and what is not known about the condition itself and the effects of the treatment. If anything, my general impression is that doctors or pharma companies are inundating me with too much information, e.g. extremely low probability side effects or risks, to cover their asses, rather than withholding relevant information or trying to put wool over my eyes. It is also my experience that doctors in this country are more likely to tell the patient about all possible bad outcomes (which many perceive as depressing), than doctors in, say, Eastern Europe who have the tendency of minimizing the bad prospects because they fear it may have a negative emotion impact on the patient.
It is also my understanding that everything in lifer, including medical treatment involves risk and the unknown - nothing is 100% certain and secure. There is a chance of slipping on a soap in one's bathtub and dying - and of course there is a chance of unpredictable outcome in a medical procedure. That is life.
>From that point of view, I tend to believe that a great deal of tort claims
in this country are essentially tricks to get rich on a mishap - just as the
tort reformers claim. I think it is an outcome of the peculiarity of the US
legal system (heavily reliance on juries, which brings the element of
popular sentiments and emotions trumping reason, the supply and reward
system of the legal profession that benefits from the tort claims, and the
law itself that allows private parties to claim "punitive damages" which
otherwise is a domain of public authorities). The only justification of
this irrational system that resembles graft and scheming rather than
jurisprudence is the fact that the government does less than adequate job in
protecting the public from corporate negligence and malfeasance - so the
torts are the only way citizens can seek redress.
A much better, from the public interest point of view, solution would be a tort reform and substantial strengthening of safety regulations and public oversight of corporate practices.
Doug:
> I gotta say, that story's an example of why the WSJ is so great - is
> there any other newspaper that so clearly conveys the crazy mixed-up
> world in which we're livin'?
>
That came to my mind too. WSJ is probably the only US journal that comes close to the journalistic ideal: excellent coverage coupled with the lack of pretense of impartiality. Unlike the NYT or Washington Post, they do no try to hide their partisanship.
Wojtek