4 ms·

Here's a scenario: You are tasked with dealing with a problem where there is little research and no scientific consensus. There is plenty of video evidence and

Here's a scenario: You are tasked with dealing with a problem where there is little research and no scientific consensus. There is plenty of video evidence and other related pieces of non-so-scientific evidence, but most people don't count that in evidence-based policy. What do you do? Sometimes, I think, we have to make decisions when there's no clear solution, and it's better than just dismissing a very obvious problem as non-existent. So yes, include science in every decision, but it's not the be all end all of society, it never has been, and it's not good to teach people that you can't tackle issues without a known best solution.

acqq 6y ago
> a problem where there is little research and no scientific consensus. > There is plenty of video evidence I can't even what you talk about. "Video evidence"? Edit: if I'd guess it's about "UFOs" for these there practically exists scientific consensus: no aliens proved, ever. "Video evidence" isn't the evidence of aliens.
- domnomnom 6y ago
  Lmao, turtles all the way down my friend.
Retric 6y ago
In the real world problems are never completely novel. Video game addiction for example clearly only showed up after video games, but it’s also closely related to other forms of addiction. So, simply using related models and then adjusting to new information as it shows up works just fine. If government happens to ban loot boxes for a decade it’s not that important if they get it wrong and that’s plenty of time to do real research and adjust policy. PS: If you disagree try and come up with a counter example.