Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1093/jlb/lsaa033 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1093/jlb/lsaa033 32733691!7381967!32733691     free     free     free       J+Law+Biosci 2020 ; 7 (1): lsaa033 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=32733691|t=2020. Epistemic responsibility in the face of a pandemic |pdf=|usr=}}{{32733691}} gab.com Text Epistemic responsibility in the face of a pandemic JO: J Law Biosci http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32733691 #FOAvip Should non-experts defer to epidemiologists with regard to the response to the coronavirus pandemic? We argue that deference is required with regard to settled science: non-experts (that is, people who may possess expertise of their own but whose expertise is not relevant to a particular question) ought to defer with regard to climate science and the efficacy of vaccines. However, we suggest that this deference is warranted because these questions have been appropriately probed many times by many different kinds of people. While non-experts should defer to epidemiologists with regard to matters within the sphere of epidemiology specifically, responding to the pandemic requires expertise from many fields. We best build a consensus worth deferring to by contributing our expertise now. Ethicists and philosophers are not epistemically arrogant if they question policy responses. Rather, they play a responsible role in building a reliable consensus. Twit Text FOAVip Epistemic responsibility in the face of a pandemic ????J Law Biosci http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32733691 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32733691 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|32733691}}</ref> Epistemic responsibility in the face of a pandemic #MMPMID32733691 Levy N; Savulescu J J Law Biosci 2020[Jan]; 7 (1): lsaa033 PMID32733691show ga Should non-experts defer to epidemiologists with regard to the response to the coronavirus pandemic? We argue that deference is required with regard to settled science: non-experts (that is, people who may possess expertise of their own but whose expertise is not relevant to a particular question) ought to defer with regard to climate science and the efficacy of vaccines. However, we suggest that this deference is warranted because these questions have been appropriately probed many times by many different kinds of people. While non-experts should defer to epidemiologists with regard to matters within the sphere of epidemiology specifically, responding to the pandemic requires expertise from many fields. We best build a consensus worth deferring to by contributing our expertise now. Ethicists and philosophers are not epistemically arrogant if they question policy responses. Rather, they play a responsible role in building a reliable consensus. äEpistemic responsibility in the face of a pandemic (epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing