5 ms·

Come on people! BabyRainbow is not claiming vaccinations don't work. Their point is almost exactly the opposite - we know vaccinations work without requiring

by NLips 9y ago

Come on people! BabyRainbow is not claiming vaccinations don't work. Their point is almost exactly the opposite - we know vaccinations work without requiring a 'twin Earth' that the grandparent posited. Exactly the same applies to whether e.g. cannabis is linked to cognitive decline.

mercer 9y ago
I think you might be too charitable in your interpretation of that comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14417337 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14417337
- babyrainbow 9y ago
  He he. It is really funny how people are reacting when they come across things with huge emotional investment and even remotely questioning of their beliefs... I ask . "Is it logical to reach the conclusion x based on y" and people are responding as if I have said "x is not true"! and they are saying things like "whether X is true or false does not matter because Z!" HI larious!
mdekkers 9y ago
HN is no different from any other internet hangout where people can earn and lose imaginary internet points. The only online forums I have seen work well as an open forum of discussion that don't fall victim to some form of groupthink are those that don't allow downvotes.
Dylan16807 9y ago
They're making a stupid pedantic point and deserve every single downvote for turning this conversation into white noise.
- babyrainbow 9y ago
  What stupid pedantic point? Go back to my first comment and read carefully. Tell me what I am saying, and tell what is stupid about it..
  - Dylan16807 9y ago
    > What stupid pedantic point? That studies don't have literally the same people in both groups. Especially when the main problem with "I turned out fine, so it must be safe" is that the person is confusing anecdotes with statistics, not any deficits in rigor caused by lack of access to branching timelines. It's no wonder people are confused about what you're actually trying to say. So you don't have to be intentionally condescending with "you should go back and read the comment again ellipsis". Edit: Oh great you added similar language to this comment while I was replying. Cheers. Edit 2: Even if you had branching timelines, the butterfly effect ruins your ability to know if your intervention is the actual cause of any particular outcome. Maybe one version of the participant skips a plane flight five years down the line, and that changes their health in a major way.
    - babyrainbow 9y ago
      >That studies don't have literally the same people in both groups... Go back to my first comment and tell me where I mention any kind of studies. All I was point was at the logical fallacy in the claim that something hadn't any negative impact on you because you turned to be out fine, without comparing with a version of you without the influence of that something... In the equation, 10 = y - z, you cannot say that z is 0 without knowing y, right? I am saying just that. EDIT: regarding branching timelines and butterfly effect, are you talking to yourself?
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - Dylan16807 9y ago
        "the claim that something hadn't any negative impact on you because you turned to be out fine, without comparing" I'm lumping that in under "studies" about health effects. > In the equation, 10 = y - z, you cannot say that z is 0 without knowing y, right? > I am saying just that. Yes. You are. But we have good baselines for y, and the person is trying to make an argument about the entire population of zs, so while you're correct that there is uncertainty on the y, the way you went about it is only relevant to thought experiments and your later replies were very much exacerbating a fruitless discussion. And like I added later, you can't even measure y with magic twin earths, so there was even less reason for the comment at all. >EDIT: regarding branching timelines and butterfly effect, are you talking to yourself? The comment you were replying to was talking about "twin earths". Your specific comment said "your version who never had shots". That's what I'm referring to with "branching timelines". Sorry for using alternate wording. I can avoid using the phrase "butterfly effect" if you want. It's shorthand for: Once you change something, like vaccine vs. no vaccine, there is a chance that the "twin earth" or "your version who never had shots" comes out completely differently for essentially random reasons. Tiny little differences in what you experienced the day of the shot cause different outcomes later that are entirely unrelated to the shot itself. So it's actually irrelevant whether you can test against this "your version who never had shots", because the act of performing the injection screws up the list of "random" events that happen to that other-you. And once that happens, you're basically measuring two different people. And you can measure two different people on normal earth. So there is no y vs. z comparison, not even in the thought experiment you were replying to.

by NLips 9y ago

mercer 9y ago

I think you might be too charitable in your interpretation of that comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14417337 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14417337

babyrainbow 9y ago
He he. It is really funny how people are reacting when they come across things with huge emotional investment and even remotely questioning of their beliefs... I ask . "Is it logical to reach the conclusion x based on y" and people are responding as if I have said "x is not true"! and they are saying things like "whether X is true or false does not matter because Z!" HI larious!

mdekkers 9y ago

HN is no different from any other internet hangout where people can earn and lose imaginary internet points. The only online forums I have seen work well as an open forum of discussion that don't fall victim to some form of groupthink are those that don't allow downvotes.

Dylan16807 9y ago

They're making a stupid pedantic point and deserve every single downvote for turning this conversation into white noise.

babyrainbow 9y ago
What stupid pedantic point? Go back to my first comment and read carefully. Tell me what I am saying, and tell what is stupid about it..
- Dylan16807 9y ago
  > What stupid pedantic point? That studies don't have literally the same people in both groups. Especially when the main problem with "I turned out fine, so it must be safe" is that the person is confusing anecdotes with statistics, not any deficits in rigor caused by lack of access to branching timelines. It's no wonder people are confused about what you're actually trying to say. So you don't have to be intentionally condescending with "you should go back and read the comment again ellipsis". Edit: Oh great you added similar language to this comment while I was replying. Cheers. Edit 2: Even if you had branching timelines, the butterfly effect ruins your ability to know if your intervention is the actual cause of any particular outcome. Maybe one version of the participant skips a plane flight five years down the line, and that changes their health in a major way.
  - babyrainbow 9y ago
    >That studies don't have literally the same people in both groups... Go back to my first comment and tell me where I mention any kind of studies. All I was point was at the logical fallacy in the claim that something hadn't any negative impact on you because you turned to be out fine, without comparing with a version of you without the influence of that something... In the equation, 10 = y - z, you cannot say that z is 0 without knowing y, right? I am saying just that. EDIT: regarding branching timelines and butterfly effect, are you talking to yourself?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - Dylan16807 9y ago
      "the claim that something hadn't any negative impact on you because you turned to be out fine, without comparing" I'm lumping that in under "studies" about health effects. > In the equation, 10 = y - z, you cannot say that z is 0 without knowing y, right? > I am saying just that. Yes. You are. But we have good baselines for y, and the person is trying to make an argument about the entire population of zs, so while you're correct that there is uncertainty on the y, the way you went about it is only relevant to thought experiments and your later replies were very much exacerbating a fruitless discussion. And like I added later, you can't even measure y with magic twin earths, so there was even less reason for the comment at all. >EDIT: regarding branching timelines and butterfly effect, are you talking to yourself? The comment you were replying to was talking about "twin earths". Your specific comment said "your version who never had shots". That's what I'm referring to with "branching timelines". Sorry for using alternate wording. I can avoid using the phrase "butterfly effect" if you want. It's shorthand for: Once you change something, like vaccine vs. no vaccine, there is a chance that the "twin earth" or "your version who never had shots" comes out completely differently for essentially random reasons. Tiny little differences in what you experienced the day of the shot cause different outcomes later that are entirely unrelated to the shot itself. So it's actually irrelevant whether you can test against this "your version who never had shots", because the act of performing the injection screws up the list of "random" events that happen to that other-you. And once that happens, you're basically measuring two different people. And you can measure two different people on normal earth. So there is no y vs. z comparison, not even in the thought experiment you were replying to.