Nonsense. In fact, nonsense on rickety stilts
-
-
Replying to @mloxton @MarkHoofnagle
You seem to be saying plausibility doesn’t matter? I guess I can start accepting research by homeopaths as believable then!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gorskon @MarkHoofnagle
Plausibility as the product of personal opinion doesn't work as the replacement of a published paper in a peer-reviewed journal. Your personal opinion that the upper limit of a range offered by a paper, remains just your personal opinion. Your opinion isn't data
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @mloxton @MarkHoofnagle
Plausibility can be abused in that way, but it's not "just a product of personal opinion." I'll give you an example: Homeopathy. Is it just a "product of personal opinion" to say that homeopathy's precepts violate several laws of physics and chemistry, making it impossible? No!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gorskon @MarkHoofnagle
Well breaking natural laws is a give-away. Homeopathy isn't a crock because of my strong feelings of it's implausibility, but because it contradicts natural laws, and has been shown to be a crock experimentally in published papers
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @mloxton @MarkHoofnagle
OK, we're getting there. You admit the concept of plausibility can be enough. Now tell me how it's plausible that as many as 60% of all inpatient deaths every year are due to medical error. Do you really believe that? Do you believe it's 30% (250K)?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gorskon @MarkHoofnagle
Whether or not I think the upper limit of the range (400k) is implausible or not is irrelevant. The current best estimate is 251,454, and whether I find that plausible or not is, again, irrelevant
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mloxton @MarkHoofnagle
Of course. it's relevant. People can argue over what is and is not a plausible result, but to say that one's considerations of plausibility don't matter is to turn one's back on critical thinking about what's in the literature.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
How about this. I know you don't think your assessment of the plausibility of Makary's estimates for death by medical error matters. However, I want to know it anyway? Do you consider his estimates to be plausible and why or why not?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gorskon @MarkHoofnagle
ah, so just my conjecture then? Sure, I think their estimates, and all the other estimates I have seen thus far, are unlikely. My gut feel is that medical errors account for somewhere north of 40,000 deaths a year. But again, my gut isn't a study, my gut isn't an estimate
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Of course, there are numbers, better numbers, to which you can refer than Makary.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.