Right. The whole purpose of science is for others to repeat the experiment and verify it’s result. Never trust a scientist! “Scientists” these days are really more modern day priests.
I cannot tell whether your comment is sincere or facetious. And its first word is unwarranted as your comment does not actually follow on from its parent.
I didn't read the paper on which this article is based. But I understand it's not so much about why to distrust scientists, as it is about the benefit of employing critical thinking to scientific results.
My earlier comment wasn't about the experiment per se. Rather, the way the article was written.
I am more than happy to trust a scientist that clearly explains his work and thought process. I am wary of scientists that only have conclusions and hide behind jargon and "it's too complicated to explain to rubes, they'll never understand" elitism.
I don't know about "priests." I have recently seen crowds of rock dumb idiots gathered outside of scientists' homes threatening their life and their family's lives.
I don't think priests ever had to worry about the rock dumb laiety showing up with pitch forks.
Libertarians acknowledge the need for regulations. The importance is that they are stable and apply to everyone equally. Labels for food that list ingredients is great because it has been fair and stable as an example.
The regulation being discussed is fair and stable and applies to everyone equally. Most appliances in your house are energy regulated; it's actually odd that computers are not. So, if anything you're arguing for the regulations discussed.
"Letting the market decide" is not a form of regulation.
Maybe, I’m not am expert on this computer topic. I just wanted to highlight the libertarian opinion on regulations.
The main goal of libertarians is to get prices to work. The alternative that i fear we are heading towards is price controls then mandated requirements for output. E.g produce 100 loafs of bread today that will sell for $1.00 or off to jail you go.
In an inflationary economy the quality of goods decline because consumer are more sensitive to price increases than a lower quality product. The food we eat is less nutritional than before. Health will continue to decline.
A good start would be to end the need for medical licensing. It creates an artificially low supply of doctors thus increased costs. Before medical licensing there were more breakthroughs and competition.
Milton Friedman covers this in detail in “Capitalism and Freedom” if you want the full Libertarin justification, but the short answer is
1) voluntary certification, or
2) market reputation, or
3) threat of enforcement of anti-fraud laws that are less specific than licensure requirements.
The general idea being that it is seldom a good thing to remove cheap options (eg forcing poor people to go bankrupt instead of letting them choose worse care), and licensure both sets a quality floor, and also artificially restricts supply.
I think for life-and-death things like medicine this idea breaks down a bit, but that’s the end of the spectrum and how it’s argued as far as I’ve seen.
I wouldn't trust Milton Friedman's opinion when it comes to life and death. He loves busting supporting pillars without first considering how to migrate off of them. His economic "misadventures" in China resulted in protests at the Tiananmen Square and everyone knows how that ended.
You would use the various methods for determining competence used in other less-regulated fields, such as degrees, certification, and word-of-mouth. The major difference would be that individuals could choose how they wished to determine which doctors they wished to use[1].
To give an example, many people who wish to become doctors are required to go through a residency program that features elements such as required 24 hours shifts. Personally, I would be quite fine seeing a doctor who wasn't required to do such shenanigans. As it stands right now, I can't make that choice, because various special interest groups have gained a government-granted monopoly on the certification of physicians.
[1] One objection would be that, if we didn't have the force of law (which is the force of violence) keeping "quacks" from practising medicine, then many people, particularly the poor, would actually have /less/ choice. This is a utilitarian argument, but even if the premise of utilitarianism is granted, this still seems incorrect due to two factors. First, regulatory capture has led to a system that already can prevent poor people from accessing care. No care is probably worse that mediocre care. Second, the U.S. (as a nation) spend more money than other developed nations on healthcare and gets similar outcomes. This seems to indicate that a lower cost of care wouldn't necessarily cause a sudden influx of quacks onto the market.
I was looking to see if anyone caught this. It seems that Robinhood would be better for someone not investing a lot of money. If I execute a trade for $1,000,000 a small difference in stock price makes a difference and its better to pay a straight $5.00 commission with the lowest price possible. However, if I buy a single share for $50, that $5 commission is now substantial. This seems like a very clever way to compete and offer a better service to poorer people.
Unless I'm missing something the boomer either didn't catch that, or chose not to acknowledge it. As a millennial I'll assume his best intentions and that this isn't an attack on a successful company business model that he's receiving a kickback for to de-legitimizing Robinhood.
