This is very well-written and immensely helpful. Your perspective is the correct one, of course and outlines the difference between private musings and public-facing position statements. We confuse the two at our peril. Private musings do NOT constitute 'lies' if not shared publicly. Shame on every single one of the senators who are not pushing back against this persecution-in-the-name-of-distraction.
I think the public's misunderstanding of uncertainty in science is the crux of their whole distrust of science in general. The classic example is the "it's just a theory" dismissal of scientific consensus, based on the difference between the scientific and layperson definitions of "theory". Scientists view uncertainty as a fact of life, and corrections as the active process of scientific progress. The public views uncertainty as ignorance, and corrections as evidence of mistakes or falsehoods. Releasing private notes to an audience primed to misunderstand them really wasn't intended to change minds or clarify things; it was just low blow to score political points. The challenge is that if Fauci's public statements had fully reflected his uncertainty, the public would have concluded that nobody knows anything and ignored the advice. Presenting clearer advice based on the best available information was more effective at the time, but left Fauci open to this nonsense. It's not clear what the "right" approach is for a scientist tasked with communicating uncertain science to the scientifically illiterate (and hostile). Pity Congress isn't tackling that problem, either.
The fact that Rand Paul is a medical doctor, therefore presumably well-trained in science, is one of the unsettling facts about his attack on Dr. Fauci.
I think he did get the training and education you'd expect for a doctor, but I also think it's entirely possible to get a real medical degree without fully embracing or even understanding the scientific process and the rules of evidence and logic.
I have two separate points to make, not in opposition to your ideas here but in extension. Dr. Fauci was not only a high level scientist, he was also a high level government official. As a mid level manager myself, we all knew that there was no expectation of privacy for anything created on a government owned computer system. We were required to remind our staff annually of this fact. I would expect that Dr. Fauci knew that and if he actually wanted the diary to remain private, he would have used a privately owned device. I suspect he used a government owned device for historical reasons in recognition of the momentous events he was involved in. Perhaps he even over estimated the quality of the people who would first access the notebooks.
My second point is that none of the Republican committee members making such a hub bub have much if any scientific training, not even the ophthalmologist. And they all have a political axe to grind.
Thanks for your work. As someone who thinks (and overthinks) and considers lots of possibilities a lot, I think you are spot on. Who has time to be constantly reviewing old entries in a diary and editing them to discuss why or why not they still think the same thing?
I was introduced to it as a geologist, but I think
every scientist and critical thinker should read the classic paper by T.C. Chamberlin on keeping an open mind with multiple working hypotheses.
Dr. Fauci made a mistake I learned to avoid over 20 years ago when I watched as a fellow employee was escorted out by HR: never use your employer's computer for personal use. In Dr. Fauci's case, it gave Sen. Paul the opening he needed to grind his personal axe.
Echoing Chris Biow, you definitely can't rule out the possible impact of your Vitamin D supplementation on the remission of your psoriasis - chronic plaque psoriasis being an immune mediated inflammatory condition and Vitamin D being recognised as a significant immune regulator.
Did you ever test your serum Vitamin D? If there had been any sort of link between Vitamin D deficiency and the psoriasis, it could take a very long time (years) for it to wind back down to a deficient level. That is, if it ever got back down, given changes in diet, sun exposure, etc.
The great thing about D is that there is a biomarker that is fairly inexpensive to test. Sure, individual thresholds may vary across an enormous range of serum levels, but you can at least have the objective measure on the other side of supplementation, diet, and sun.
I've had a serum D deficiency (no apparent symptoms) and finally, after 15 years of varying supplementation and testing, I have a (perhaps oversimplified) linear and constant model of absorption and depletion that predicts my next serum test with small error. Those variables are clearly different from my own case to the population baseline (which doesn't need supplements) in the literature.
I feel like you’re purposely avoiding the harder question here. Nobody expects a private diary to match public statements word for word, but it’s worth looking at whether the strong confidence he showed publicly was even close to his uncertainty…and what was that impact for millions of Americans. Much higher stakes than your psoriasis experiment.
And I think you're ignoring the fact that the world was in the midst of a deadly pandemic and people were desperate for guidance. Fauci and other scientific/medical experts were giving the best guidance based on information about the virus that was changing all the time. To expect instant accurate information about this new virus and how to slow or stop it's spread was a foolish expectation. Unfortunately, people have come to expect instant answers to almost everything. Highly unrealistic.
This is very well-written and immensely helpful. Your perspective is the correct one, of course and outlines the difference between private musings and public-facing position statements. We confuse the two at our peril. Private musings do NOT constitute 'lies' if not shared publicly. Shame on every single one of the senators who are not pushing back against this persecution-in-the-name-of-distraction.
I think the public's misunderstanding of uncertainty in science is the crux of their whole distrust of science in general. The classic example is the "it's just a theory" dismissal of scientific consensus, based on the difference between the scientific and layperson definitions of "theory". Scientists view uncertainty as a fact of life, and corrections as the active process of scientific progress. The public views uncertainty as ignorance, and corrections as evidence of mistakes or falsehoods. Releasing private notes to an audience primed to misunderstand them really wasn't intended to change minds or clarify things; it was just low blow to score political points. The challenge is that if Fauci's public statements had fully reflected his uncertainty, the public would have concluded that nobody knows anything and ignored the advice. Presenting clearer advice based on the best available information was more effective at the time, but left Fauci open to this nonsense. It's not clear what the "right" approach is for a scientist tasked with communicating uncertain science to the scientifically illiterate (and hostile). Pity Congress isn't tackling that problem, either.
The fact that Rand Paul is a medical doctor, therefore presumably well-trained in science, is one of the unsettling facts about his attack on Dr. Fauci.
Apparently
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2010/06/rand-paul-not-really-a-doctor-like-in-the-board-certified-sense?srsltid=AfmBOoooYHAVSFSmZvisut5nI3APhdbtjW9V-wyi_nTQ8iwmiU8Fznbl
I think he did get the training and education you'd expect for a doctor, but I also think it's entirely possible to get a real medical degree without fully embracing or even understanding the scientific process and the rules of evidence and logic.
I have two separate points to make, not in opposition to your ideas here but in extension. Dr. Fauci was not only a high level scientist, he was also a high level government official. As a mid level manager myself, we all knew that there was no expectation of privacy for anything created on a government owned computer system. We were required to remind our staff annually of this fact. I would expect that Dr. Fauci knew that and if he actually wanted the diary to remain private, he would have used a privately owned device. I suspect he used a government owned device for historical reasons in recognition of the momentous events he was involved in. Perhaps he even over estimated the quality of the people who would first access the notebooks.
My second point is that none of the Republican committee members making such a hub bub have much if any scientific training, not even the ophthalmologist. And they all have a political axe to grind.
Thanks for your work. As someone who thinks (and overthinks) and considers lots of possibilities a lot, I think you are spot on. Who has time to be constantly reviewing old entries in a diary and editing them to discuss why or why not they still think the same thing?
I was introduced to it as a geologist, but I think
every scientist and critical thinker should read the classic paper by T.C. Chamberlin on keeping an open mind with multiple working hypotheses.
https://www.whoi.edu/cms/files/chamberlin65sci_72744.pdf
Excellent. Thank you. If we keep releasing private notebooks, people will stop keeping them and that would be unfortunate at best.
Just, thank you! And you should really replace that attic light bulb because it’s a safety hazard.
😂👍
Dr. Fauci made a mistake I learned to avoid over 20 years ago when I watched as a fellow employee was escorted out by HR: never use your employer's computer for personal use. In Dr. Fauci's case, it gave Sen. Paul the opening he needed to grind his personal axe.
Echoing Chris Biow, you definitely can't rule out the possible impact of your Vitamin D supplementation on the remission of your psoriasis - chronic plaque psoriasis being an immune mediated inflammatory condition and Vitamin D being recognised as a significant immune regulator.
Whole lotta' blather about nothing much at all, imo.
Did you ever test your serum Vitamin D? If there had been any sort of link between Vitamin D deficiency and the psoriasis, it could take a very long time (years) for it to wind back down to a deficient level. That is, if it ever got back down, given changes in diet, sun exposure, etc.
The great thing about D is that there is a biomarker that is fairly inexpensive to test. Sure, individual thresholds may vary across an enormous range of serum levels, but you can at least have the objective measure on the other side of supplementation, diet, and sun.
I've had a serum D deficiency (no apparent symptoms) and finally, after 15 years of varying supplementation and testing, I have a (perhaps oversimplified) linear and constant model of absorption and depletion that predicts my next serum test with small error. Those variables are clearly different from my own case to the population baseline (which doesn't need supplements) in the literature.
This is true in the lab and in life.
I feel like you’re purposely avoiding the harder question here. Nobody expects a private diary to match public statements word for word, but it’s worth looking at whether the strong confidence he showed publicly was even close to his uncertainty…and what was that impact for millions of Americans. Much higher stakes than your psoriasis experiment.
And I think you're ignoring the fact that the world was in the midst of a deadly pandemic and people were desperate for guidance. Fauci and other scientific/medical experts were giving the best guidance based on information about the virus that was changing all the time. To expect instant accurate information about this new virus and how to slow or stop it's spread was a foolish expectation. Unfortunately, people have come to expect instant answers to almost everything. Highly unrealistic.