3 ms·

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.
    - babyrainbow 9y ago
      >I'm lumping that in under "studies" about health effects. Then the blame is on you, Not me.
      - Dylan16807 9y ago
        >> I'm lumping that in under "studies" about health effects. > Then the blame is on you, Not me. Okay, I think there's been some miscommunication here. Because whether we call that a study is absolutely irrelevant to either of our points. So I accept total blame for that wording? I will call it whatever you want, because it has nothing to do with my argument.
    - babyrainbow 9y ago
      > 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.... There is no need to use a time line. You can have an hypothetical machine that could extract the effects of the vaccine from your body... So you enter into this machine, and comes out as a version that never had any vaccines...There. You have got your delta.
      - Dylan16807 9y ago
        Removing the effects without redoing the timeline would be able to measure some effects, but not others. Anyway this is not really helpful so I'll restate the part that actually matters and then peace out. Yes you have a technically correct point, but the way you went about presenting it as "this argument is flawed" lead to people pointing out significantly more important flaws in the argument. You then sassed people instead of just letting it be or trying to refocus on what you were actually trying to contribute. Not a great strategy, all-in-all.
        babyrainbow 9y ago
        >Removing the effects without redoing the timeline would be able to measure some effects, but not others. Like what exactly? >Yes you have a technically correct point, but the way you went about presenting it as "this argument is flawed if "argument is flawed" how can I present it any different...

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.
  - babyrainbow 9y ago
    >I'm lumping that in under "studies" about health effects. Then the blame is on you, Not me.
    - Dylan16807 9y ago
      >> I'm lumping that in under "studies" about health effects. > Then the blame is on you, Not me. Okay, I think there's been some miscommunication here. Because whether we call that a study is absolutely irrelevant to either of our points. So I accept total blame for that wording? I will call it whatever you want, because it has nothing to do with my argument.
  - babyrainbow 9y ago
    > 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.... There is no need to use a time line. You can have an hypothetical machine that could extract the effects of the vaccine from your body... So you enter into this machine, and comes out as a version that never had any vaccines...There. You have got your delta.
    - Dylan16807 9y ago
      Removing the effects without redoing the timeline would be able to measure some effects, but not others. Anyway this is not really helpful so I'll restate the part that actually matters and then peace out. Yes you have a technically correct point, but the way you went about presenting it as "this argument is flawed" lead to people pointing out significantly more important flaws in the argument. You then sassed people instead of just letting it be or trying to refocus on what you were actually trying to contribute. Not a great strategy, all-in-all.
      - babyrainbow 9y ago
        >Removing the effects without redoing the timeline would be able to measure some effects, but not others. Like what exactly? >Yes you have a technically correct point, but the way you went about presenting it as "this argument is flawed if "argument is flawed" how can I present it any different...