Along with my co-authors Jan Vandenbroucke and Neil Pearce, I engaged in a stimulating debate at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine today, on this paper:
Here is a link to the slides from my presentation:
The debate was impassioned yet civilized. For me the most striking thing was how much seemed to come down to who said what, and who thought what. Are we attacking a straw man? If so, does that mean we’re right in substance, and wrong to think anyone would disagree? That itself would be remarkable, because it really seems to me, both from reading and talking, including feedback from other audiences, that some people do espouse the views we criticize. Or if we are not attacking a straw man, then is our position correct, or a sort of methodolical Ludditism, a reactionary preference for existing views?
I hope that more epidemiologists, and hopefully philosophers too, will weigh in.