Charles Piller

Well, I think it's tragic. Myself, as someone who tremendously support scientific research and the wisdom of doctors, truly. It's been very sad to see the decline in public understanding of how important those processes are. I think it's due to a couple things. One is I think there are people in society who are using

Doctors and some of the medical situations we've been experiencing, such as the pandemic, beat up on institutional authorities like in medicine and for political purposes. And I think that's horrible and unfounded, unwarranted. The second thing is that science and medicine sometimes have an arrogance problem. And they use the idea that trust us or the experts.

Doctors and some of the medical situations we've been experiencing, such as the pandemic, beat up on institutional authorities like in medicine and for political purposes. And I think that's horrible and unfounded, unwarranted. The second thing is that science and medicine sometimes have an arrogance problem. And they use the idea that trust us or the experts.

Doctors and some of the medical situations we've been experiencing, such as the pandemic, beat up on institutional authorities like in medicine and for political purposes. And I think that's horrible and unfounded, unwarranted. The second thing is that science and medicine sometimes have an arrogance problem. And they use the idea that trust us or the experts.

And unfortunately, that trust has to be won, not just assumed. And when you have situations where there are missteps, honest human mistakes, or scandals associated with misconduct, Or simply just bad moves, bad policy moves. What you see is that often scientists are entrusted with policy decisions for which they have no specific expertise.

And unfortunately, that trust has to be won, not just assumed. And when you have situations where there are missteps, honest human mistakes, or scandals associated with misconduct, Or simply just bad moves, bad policy moves. What you see is that often scientists are entrusted with policy decisions for which they have no specific expertise.

And unfortunately, that trust has to be won, not just assumed. And when you have situations where there are missteps, honest human mistakes, or scandals associated with misconduct, Or simply just bad moves, bad policy moves. What you see is that often scientists are entrusted with policy decisions for which they have no specific expertise.

Or decisions about how to run things in society that they might claim expertise for, but they actually have no special expertise for. And those are the reasons why I think sometimes people develop mistrust in science.

Or decisions about how to run things in society that they might claim expertise for, but they actually have no special expertise for. And those are the reasons why I think sometimes people develop mistrust in science.

Or decisions about how to run things in society that they might claim expertise for, but they actually have no special expertise for. And those are the reasons why I think sometimes people develop mistrust in science.

Now, as for me, I'm deeply, deeply determined to try to fight off the needless skepticism, the needless complaints about problems in science and in medicine, but also to be serious about identifying problems where they are in order to strengthen the scientific infrastructure, if you would, to strengthen the ability of doctors to have those honest and effective conversations with patients.

Now, as for me, I'm deeply, deeply determined to try to fight off the needless skepticism, the needless complaints about problems in science and in medicine, but also to be serious about identifying problems where they are in order to strengthen the scientific infrastructure, if you would, to strengthen the ability of doctors to have those honest and effective conversations with patients.

Now, as for me, I'm deeply, deeply determined to try to fight off the needless skepticism, the needless complaints about problems in science and in medicine, but also to be serious about identifying problems where they are in order to strengthen the scientific infrastructure, if you would, to strengthen the ability of doctors to have those honest and effective conversations with patients.

So are you saying you seek to be critical of the scientific method of the scientific agencies in order to make it more valuable to the general public?

So are you saying you seek to be critical of the scientific method of the scientific agencies in order to make it more valuable to the general public?

So are you saying you seek to be critical of the scientific method of the scientific agencies in order to make it more valuable to the general public?

I would just change one word there. Not so much the scientific method, which I think in its highest form is a wonderful and well, well stated process of experimentation and and testing hypotheses. That part of it is terrific. It's where people cut corners or ignore important elements of the equation where you start to run into trouble.

I would just change one word there. Not so much the scientific method, which I think in its highest form is a wonderful and well, well stated process of experimentation and and testing hypotheses. That part of it is terrific. It's where people cut corners or ignore important elements of the equation where you start to run into trouble.

I would just change one word there. Not so much the scientific method, which I think in its highest form is a wonderful and well, well stated process of experimentation and and testing hypotheses. That part of it is terrific. It's where people cut corners or ignore important elements of the equation where you start to run into trouble.

And so, yes, I support the very excellent exercise of that method. And I support people who are trying their level best to deliver something important to the public, even if they do sometimes make mistakes. How would you describe the scientific method for the general public? Well, science is a series of iterations.