I knew people would dismiss my post on the ground that I wasn't an "expert", so let me say a few things about this "argument", because I'm tired of hearing it. 1/n
First, I know @RadioFreeTom doesn't understand this, if only because he clearly didn't read my post before he made that tweet, but it's simply false that the content of my post is entirely outside my area of expertise. 2/n
If you actually read the post, you will see that most of it is devoted to what is essentially an epistemological question, which is not something epidemiologists are particularly well-trained to discuss. However, a a philosopher of science, I am. 3/n
Next, I studied the model used by Imperial College team very carefully, something I'm perfectly capable of doing. It's not actually very complicated from a mathematical point of view and most people with a modicum of mathematical training can understand it. 4/n
Despite what many people think, most philosophers of science actually try to learn the science they want to talk about before they talk about it, because they need to in order to be able to talk about it. 5/n
In order to be able to understand the model and describe it, I had to read the supplementary notes of a paper cited by the supplementary notes if a paper cited by Imperial College's report, so I did my homework. 6/n
If I made a mistake in describing the model, I'd be happy for an epidemiologist to correct it, but I don't think I did. At least, I'm very confident I didn't make any serious mistake, because again I studied it carefully. 7/n
Indeed, as any scientists will tell you (I know many of them), people rarely read the supplementary notes of papers, so I'd say that I know the model better than most epidemiologists except those who specialize in that kind of simulations. 8/n
As far as this model is concerned, the gist of my argument is that there are too many degrees of freedom in the specification and the parameterization of the model for this kind of exercise to be truly informative. 9/n
I offered a careful argument for this conclusion that rests on very specific points. If an epidemiologist or anyone else wants to explain why it's wrong, he is welcome, but I suspect that I'm going to be waiting for a while 🤷♂️ 10/n 
If they *can't* tell me why my argument is mistaken, but just dismiss it on the ground that I'm not an epidemiologist, why exactly should I care? 11/n
I'm followed by hundreds of scientists on Twitter and I also follow many of them. I frequently interact with them and I don't think many of them think I'm a fool who can't understand what they're doing. None has ever dismissed my arguments on the ground I'm not a scientist. 12/n
In fact, the only people who have ever done that were not scientists but people like @RadioFreeTom with no scientific training or a handful of French sociologists who can't understand basic statistics... 13/n
Obviously, I'm not saying experts should be ignored either, but it's important to understand that 1) experts disagree with each other, 2) they can and often are wrong and 3) sometimes people outside their field can disagree with them and be right. 14/n
The kind of naive appeal to authority many people are resorting to in response to my post is based on ignorance of how science actually works, as I point out in this tweet, which incidentally was liked and retweeted by many scientists 🤔 15/n
The current situation is actually a case in point. I may not be an "expert", but unlike many so-called "experts", I didn't say this virus was just like a bad flu when this call was, at the very least, premature and I'm not responsible for the mess we're in ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16/n
Anyway, I'm prepared to be shown that I'm wrong, perhaps my argument is mistaken. But I can assure you that it's at least not *obvious* that I'm wrong. And I'm not going to be moved because some idiots think they can dismiss it on the ground that I'm no epidemiologist. 17/17
ADDENDUM: By the way, in case you want to read this very bad post written by a non-expert, here it is. necpluribusimpar.net/are-we-headed-…
ANOTHER: I realize that, as I wrote this, it suggests that sociologists are not scientists. I want to make clear that I don't believe this. People who think social sciences are not real sciences also generally don't know what they're talking about.
Nobody complained about this yet, but I wanted to make that clear, because this view actually annoys me a lot and I'd hate for people to think I agree with it and even more to convince people it's a good view. It's a terrible view, it's just that some sociologists are dumb 🤷♂️
(Oh yeah did I mention that experts were sometimes wrong and, dare I say it, that some of them are even total fools? Because they are, like the French sociologists I was referring to in that tweet. But sociology itself is a very important and interesting field.)
