3 ms·
> But mainly, I see a strongly inverse correlation between the level of apocalyptic doom in a story and its likelihood. That's a rather odd thing to say for a
by yongjik 10y ago
> But mainly, I see a strongly inverse correlation between the level of apocalyptic doom in a story and its likelihood.
That's a rather odd thing to say for a topic that's been researched by thousands of experts for decades. As if we have to resort to Bayesian priors because no other evidence is available.
I mean, if someone yells "Your sofa is on fire!", you wouldn't sit there and muse "Hmm, that sounds pretty dire, but the severity of the claim is inversely proportional to its likelihood..." You would just get up and see if that's the case.
- ArkyBeagle 10y agoSee, you're doing it, too. My sofa isn't on fire, metaphorically. Science != science journalism. In terms of how narrative works, scary stories sell better, so there's a bias in the story-telling. It just makes filtering through all the rubbish that more difficult. If I have to bet, I bet on AGW but that's like one bit of information. All the other bits are harder to get to. I literally am dependent on the kindness of other people who can do the math for a reading of it. And that ignores the side effects of overreaction.