Perhaps you'd like to present some data that suggests that in some broad area of health the US is clearly ahead?
Other than in terms of responsiveness (and in terms of providing incentive for innovation, but that's not really being ahead since we're paying the cost and everyone can receive the benefits), I didn't assert that the US was clearly ahead in a broad area.
How about you present some data that shows in broad areas (other than distribution and "fairness") we are clearly behind?
That would be considered a scientific way to assert that your opinion is more valid than the epidemiologists and physicians who authored the WHO report.
Expert opinion is a dime a dozen, you can find experts with all different sorts of opinions, often directly opposite to each other. I don't differ to experts on opinions. Now if they are experts they might be able to show why their opinion is correct. They might back up their opinion with facts, solid methodology, and logic, and show how they have done so. In that case their statements should carry a lot of weight, but not because they are experts but rather because of how solidly they back up their opinions.
In WHOs case they used very poor and apparently biased methodology for the studies headline conclusion. That doesn't speak well for the parts of the studies, but no it doesn't show that they are wrong either. OTOH it does suggest there is no reason to uncritically accept the lower level rankings. Not that there would be a good reason to do so, even in the absence of the problems with how they then put these parts together (for the reasons I laid out in the last paragraph), but when there is apparently bias in one part, that makes it even more reasonable to think the rest might be biased or otherwise faulty.
the willingness to accept guesses and opinion as a response to scientifically rigorous facts.
My statements have been analysis more than guesses. Pointing out holes or possible problems isn't guessing. Saying "those problems mean that the US is really #1" would be guessing but I didn't say that.
More importantly my analysis has not been in response to scientifically rigorous facts, as no such facts have been presented. Rankings like the WHO study, even pretty good ones (unlike the WHO study) don't amount to rigorous science. And that's the actual study. Mere presentations of its rankings and conclusions are even further away from being "scientifically rigorous facts". |
