6 ms·

>People who are going to the beach probably are not worried about COVID. There's also a fair amount of debate among the technocrats about how transmissible it i

>People who are going to the beach probably are not worried about COVID. There's also a fair amount of debate among the technocrats about how transmissible it is on a beach. There were huge huge crowds on the beach with know one wearing masks and now we're experiencing Covid spikes. I wonder why? The doctors and the CDC are telling everyone to stay in and wear masks. Ignore the technocrats, they're not experts.

aww_dang 6y ago
In case you're not familiar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy By definition a technocrat would be ordained as an expert in his field. However, this does not preclude the fallibility of man. If we extrapolate from this, we can say that it would be impossible for an individual or group of individuals to obtain the perfect information necessary to ideally centrally plan a society. There is a propensity for 'experts' in their field to massage data to suit political or personal goals. Heart attack deaths are down, but COVID deaths are up. Some have suggested that this is due to selective reporting of deaths which would otherwise be cardiac arrests as COVID related deaths. There's also the problem of the unseen. Even if the epidemiologists could have the perfect information in regards to controlling an outbreak, they wouldn't necessarily appreciate the economic or social implications of their mandates. If we accept these limitations, we can say that greater information can be obtained via the network effects of decentralized decision making. This is the value of individualism which has allowed the west to flourish, whereas more communal cultures have been regressive. Of course this is all a very general overview. >and now we're experiencing Covid spikes. I wonder why? I'll ignore your cherry picking and refrain from picking an equivalent counter-example. If we accept that the US has failed in managing the covid crisis, then we should just as readily ask if top-down planning has been effective. Instead you focus on the inverse.
- leafboi 6y ago
  You are far removed from reality. Talk to your friends in china. The anecdotal evidence is clear. Last week several of my friends attended an extravagant wedding. Not to mention the statistical measures and statements from technocrats are all inline and consistent. Your retort is the equivalent of flat earthers or fake moon landing conspiracy theories. Open your eyes.
  - aww_dang 6y ago
    Yes, new outbreaks and lockdowns are being reported throughout China. Anecdotal reports are not especially meaningful in the context you suggest. >Not to mention the statistical measures and statements from technocrats are all inline and consistent. Wear a mask, don't wear a mask. Cloth face coverings are sufficient. Cloth face coverings are not sufficient. A paper debunking the use of hydroxychloroquine was retracted, as many studies are. Without a doubt, the issue has become politicized. Human knowledge is imperfect. Science is a system of rational inquiry practiced by fallible humans, not a system of belief. Scientism would be the misuse of science as a system of belief. Typical of the theme, those who criticize scientism (and the annointed technocrats) are castigated as heretics and unbelievers. Attempting to conflate my doubts about the effectiveness of technocratic management and central planning with flat eartherism is plain hyperbole. This kind of retort speaks to your inability to address the issue. What would fact-checkers have said to Copernicus?
    - leafboi 6y ago
      >Yes, new outbreaks and lockdowns are being reported throughout China. Anecdotal reports are not especially meaningful in the context you suggest. I gave you 3 contexts. Anecdotal, statistical and sayings from technocrats. Statistical: https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus Technocrats: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6498/1481 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6498/1481 Anecdotal evidence was already provided to you. >Wear a mask, don't wear a mask. Cloth face coverings are sufficient. Cloth face coverings are not sufficient. Technocrats from China and the US were obviously divided about this. Sources of information can be wrong. But in this specific case I am providing you with 3 sources. Each consistent. >Human knowledge is imperfect. Science is a system of rational inquiry practiced by fallible humans, not a system of belief. Scientism would be the misuse of science as a system of belief. Typical of the theme, those who criticize scientism (and the annointed technocrats) are castigated as heretics and unbelievers. But it is more perfect then anything that can come out of you. If I have provided you evidence from three sources or even one source it is better than anything you can come up with. Right now the information I provided you is the best information we have. Similar to how the theory of gravity is the best theory we have for why things go down and not up. >Attempting to conflate my doubts about the effectiveness of technocratic management and central planning with flat eartherism is plain hyperbole. This kind of retort speaks to your inability to address the issue. No I am conflating your ability to ignore evidence and not present counter-evidence. All you do is just doubt doubt doubt. How can you doubt without evidence yourself? How is that scientific? It is not. You can just as well doubt the theory of gravity. There is no difference, and your bias makes you incapable of seeing that. There are multiple lenses and sources and observers seeing what's going on in China both biased and unbiased. You have utilizes none of those sources, only choosing to doubt. I have presented evidence. Where's yours?

aww_dang 6y ago

In case you're not familiar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy By definition a technocrat would be ordained as an expert in his field. However, this does not preclude the fallibility of man. If we extrapolate from this, we can say that it would be impossible for an individual or group of individuals to obtain the perfect information necessary to ideally centrally plan a society. There is a propensity for 'experts' in their field to massage data to suit political or personal goals. Heart attack deaths are down, but COVID deaths are up. Some have suggested that this is due to selective reporting of deaths which would otherwise be cardiac arrests as COVID related deaths. There's also the problem of the unseen. Even if the epidemiologists could have the perfect information in regards to controlling an outbreak, they wouldn't necessarily appreciate the economic or social implications of their mandates. If we accept these limitations, we can say that greater information can be obtained via the network effects of decentralized decision making. This is the value of individualism which has allowed the west to flourish, whereas more communal cultures have been regressive. Of course this is all a very general overview. >and now we're experiencing Covid spikes. I wonder why? I'll ignore your cherry picking and refrain from picking an equivalent counter-example. If we accept that the US has failed in managing the covid crisis, then we should just as readily ask if top-down planning has been effective. Instead you focus on the inverse.

leafboi 6y ago
You are far removed from reality. Talk to your friends in china. The anecdotal evidence is clear. Last week several of my friends attended an extravagant wedding. Not to mention the statistical measures and statements from technocrats are all inline and consistent. Your retort is the equivalent of flat earthers or fake moon landing conspiracy theories. Open your eyes.
- aww_dang 6y ago
  Yes, new outbreaks and lockdowns are being reported throughout China. Anecdotal reports are not especially meaningful in the context you suggest. >Not to mention the statistical measures and statements from technocrats are all inline and consistent. Wear a mask, don't wear a mask. Cloth face coverings are sufficient. Cloth face coverings are not sufficient. A paper debunking the use of hydroxychloroquine was retracted, as many studies are. Without a doubt, the issue has become politicized. Human knowledge is imperfect. Science is a system of rational inquiry practiced by fallible humans, not a system of belief. Scientism would be the misuse of science as a system of belief. Typical of the theme, those who criticize scientism (and the annointed technocrats) are castigated as heretics and unbelievers. Attempting to conflate my doubts about the effectiveness of technocratic management and central planning with flat eartherism is plain hyperbole. This kind of retort speaks to your inability to address the issue. What would fact-checkers have said to Copernicus?
  - leafboi 6y ago
    >Yes, new outbreaks and lockdowns are being reported throughout China. Anecdotal reports are not especially meaningful in the context you suggest. I gave you 3 contexts. Anecdotal, statistical and sayings from technocrats. Statistical: https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus Technocrats: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6498/1481 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6498/1481 Anecdotal evidence was already provided to you. >Wear a mask, don't wear a mask. Cloth face coverings are sufficient. Cloth face coverings are not sufficient. Technocrats from China and the US were obviously divided about this. Sources of information can be wrong. But in this specific case I am providing you with 3 sources. Each consistent. >Human knowledge is imperfect. Science is a system of rational inquiry practiced by fallible humans, not a system of belief. Scientism would be the misuse of science as a system of belief. Typical of the theme, those who criticize scientism (and the annointed technocrats) are castigated as heretics and unbelievers. But it is more perfect then anything that can come out of you. If I have provided you evidence from three sources or even one source it is better than anything you can come up with. Right now the information I provided you is the best information we have. Similar to how the theory of gravity is the best theory we have for why things go down and not up. >Attempting to conflate my doubts about the effectiveness of technocratic management and central planning with flat eartherism is plain hyperbole. This kind of retort speaks to your inability to address the issue. No I am conflating your ability to ignore evidence and not present counter-evidence. All you do is just doubt doubt doubt. How can you doubt without evidence yourself? How is that scientific? It is not. You can just as well doubt the theory of gravity. There is no difference, and your bias makes you incapable of seeing that. There are multiple lenses and sources and observers seeing what's going on in China both biased and unbiased. You have utilizes none of those sources, only choosing to doubt. I have presented evidence. Where's yours?