Without having read all that (the Scott article was already "more than you wanted to know" and this is definitely veering into "waay more than I ever could possibly have wanted to know"), this seems to be a useful article since it mostly starts from Scotts article and gives an "overview" (albeit a long one) as to why the author thinks he was wrong.
This seems generally good. And I can imagine that Scott was too harsh in excluding some not so great studies.
But then, directionally my takeaway from Scotts article (at the time it was written) was that Ivermectin actually had a small chance of actually being mildly useful and that it might actually have been a good investment of money and time to run some more well-done studies (though there were already a lot of badly run ones to muddy the water). Mainstream news on that topic on the other hand was that Ivermectin was nothing but "horse dewormer" that only idiots would take against Covid.
So I think that railing against Scott is kinda barking up the wrong tree (especially with the slightly combative tone of the article [0]). But then, we maybe just expect a lot more from Scott (and his long article) than he provided. In any case, it seems that nowadays this matters less as a practical concern (Paxlovid is kinda good) and it boils down more to a debate about epistemic practices.
[0] I only glanced at it ... as I said it's kinda long and my interest in the topic is not huge. But the tone strikes me as somewhat accusatory of someone who IMHO did a reasonable (if not perfect) job. But then, I also really like Scott as an author, so I might be biased.
I've read a fair bit of this but not all. My main takeaway from what I have read is that there is a decent chance that Ivermectin has a small positive effect but there isn't anything near enough quality to say that it has a pandemic-ending effect. Since I though that was the claim of the Ivermectin people I get a bit confused about why were are still spending so much time talking about it.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Without having read all that (the Scott article was already "more than you wanted to know" and this is definitely veering into "waay more than I ever could possibly have wanted to know"), this seems to be a useful article since it mostly starts from Scotts article and gives an "overview" (albeit a long one) as to why the author thinks he was wrong.
This seems generally good. And I can imagine that Scott was too harsh in excluding some not so great studies.
But then, directionally my takeaway from Scotts article (at the time it was written) was that Ivermectin actually had a small chance of actually being mildly useful and that it might actually have been a good investment of money and time to run some more well-done studies (though there were already a lot of badly run ones to muddy the water). Mainstream news on that topic on the other hand was that Ivermectin was nothing but "horse dewormer" that only idiots would take against Covid.
So I think that railing against Scott is kinda barking up the wrong tree (especially with the slightly combative tone of the article [0]). But then, we maybe just expect a lot more from Scott (and his long article) than he provided. In any case, it seems that nowadays this matters less as a practical concern (Paxlovid is kinda good) and it boils down more to a debate about epistemic practices.
[0] I only glanced at it ... as I said it's kinda long and my interest in the topic is not huge. But the tone strikes me as somewhat accusatory of someone who IMHO did a reasonable (if not perfect) job. But then, I also really like Scott as an author, so I might be biased.
I've read a fair bit of this but not all. My main takeaway from what I have read is that there is a decent chance that Ivermectin has a small positive effect but there isn't anything near enough quality to say that it has a pandemic-ending effect. Since I though that was the claim of the Ivermectin people I get a bit confused about why were are still spending so much time talking about it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link