Transcript · English → Chinese
English → Chinese transcript
但是当你去问放射科医生，或者稍微 更有学识一点的临床医生，或者去问病理科医生时，
他们是看组织学材料的，他们会取一 块组织标本，然后把它放在
显微镜下观察，他们认为那其实更接 近“真实情况”。而且我有一些朋友
就是病理科医生。我认识病理科医生 ，也认识我的这些同事。我就说，你看，
你可能觉得，在组织这个层面上，病 理学就是真相。但是
事实是，从来没有病理学家或组织学 家真正看过一个按自然状态存在的人体，或人体的一部分。
他们必须先把标本取出来，而且这个 标本必须经历好几道
转化工序，他们才能在显微镜下看到 任何对他们来说有意义的东西。
显微镜。所以即便是他们自己也没有 掌握真相。就像是啊，这座高塔越往下看，
层数越多就越摇摇欲坠。所以在我看 来，你干脆就直接一头扎进去算了。
人们在提到一大堆东西的时候，很随 意地喜欢用“伪科学”这个词，
不管是占星术，还是看待人体和医学 的各种另类方式。
但我认为，在这种情况下，病毒学是 现存最具伪科学色彩的尝试之一，
因为它使用技术、术语、科学这些东 西，来让人感觉他们的叙事、
他们的说法才是对证据的正确解读。 但在我看来并不是这样，
它确确实实是伪科学。是啊，你又一 次提出了非常精彩的观点。
这确实直击问题的核心：你究竟把什 么当成现实在接受？你在
接受什么正在发生？再说一次，我觉 得你可能很幸运，你所处的是一个
医学科学领域，而且这个领域实际上 有一些相当不错的衡量标准。
走运的是——呸呸呸，图个吉利。
End of transcript · 333 words · machine translated
Original transcript (English)
But then when you ask a radiologist or a little bit more learned physician or a pathologist who looks at histologic stuff, where they'll take a tissue specimen and then look at it under a microscope, they think that that is actually closer to the ground truth. And I have friends who are pathologists. I know pathologists and I know my colleagues as well. And I say, look, you might think that pathology is the truth when it comes to the tissue level. But the
matter is no pathologist or histologist has ever looked at a human body or a part of the human body as it exists in nature. They have to take the specimen. It has to undergo several transformations before they can actually see anything that they can make any sense of underneath the microscope. So even they don't have the truth. So like, yeah, this tower gets even more and more shaky the more layers you go down. And so, in my opinion, so you might as well dive right into it.
People like to use the word pseudoscience quite liberally whenever they refer to a whole bunch of stuff, whether it's astrology, it's alternative ways of looking at the human body and medicine. But I think virology, in this case, is one of the most pseudoscientific endeavors that exists because it uses technology, terminology, science in ways to make it seem like that they have, that their narrative is the correct interpretation of the evidence. But in my opinion,
it isn't. It is truly pseudoscientific. Yeah, that's again, you raise fantastic points that really cut to the core of the issue of what are you accepting as reality? What are you accepting as happening? And again, I think that you probably have a luxury of being in a field of medical science that actually has some pretty good benchmarks against it. Fortunately, I'll touch wood.
