3 ms·

Sometimes, people who have easy access (and habit) to write blog posts, etc. forget to ask themselves whether they have some standing or weight to comment on th

Sometimes, people who have easy access (and habit) to write blog posts, etc. forget to ask themselves whether they have some standing or weight to comment on the things that they think during the day. Or responsibility. Why would I listen to a software developer on whether I should follow medical guidelines in a health crisis, over some source more involved/accountable to the vaccine distribution system? There's absolutely no consequence for him to give 5 minute advice that he has no accountability for. Will he accept responsibility for advising people to do this? He might be right, even, but for some reason this morning I got set off irritably by such a person giving others medical advice. So for that, I apologize in advance.

kevinburke 6y ago
Well, one reason would be I was emailing my friends and family about the efficacy of wearing masks around the same time in March that the Surgeon General of the United States was posting on Twitter that masks don't work and the New York City Mayor was encouraging people to go to movie theaters and bars. I don't think arguing from authority has a really great track record this pandemic. The argument on the blog is pretty straight forward, and the data is all public.
- gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
  > I don't think arguing from authority has a really great track record this pandemic You're essentially arguing that you have authority as some credible interpreter of data. The takeaway is that practically no one seems to know how to manage the pandemic effectively, unless you want to resort to welding people inside their homes.
pickitupsnake 6y ago
He isn't providing medical advice. Waiting outside vs inside based on simple statistics...
EForEndeavour 6y ago
All else being equal, you're probably better off taking public health advice from a public health employee over a software developer. However, if the software developer raises an admittedly good point based on specific, verifiable information (in this case sourced from covid19-projections.com, which sources covidtracking.com, which in turn aggregates data from state public health authorities) which questions the pre-COVID practice of observing a vaccine recipient for 15 minutes, their occupation should not make their point any less valid. This wouldn't be the first time that a well-established best practice turned out to be exactly the wrong thing to do given new circumstances. The process of evaluating an argument should balance the informative value of the argument-maker's credentials without veering too far into gatekeeping or argument from authority (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority).
waterhouse 6y ago
The medical field, or at least its public-facing portion, seems to be full of people who are reluctant to propose anything novel if there aren't rock-solid studies justifying it, even when it's clear (even to laypeople) that an analysis of the expected costs and benefits does confidently justify it.[1][2] It's a similar kind of thing to "no one ever got fired for buying IBM". And if you look at the incentives of medical spokespeople, do they actually suffer if they give bad advice? Is Dr. Mike Ryan still executive director of the WHO health emergencies program? His Wikipedia page still says so; its link to the WHO website has rotted. Given that, it's precisely these guys, outsiders who think they're smarter (or less bound by rules or whatever) than those spokespeople, who are in a position to give us some of these important pieces of advice. Of course, that means you have to take them on evidence/argument rather than on authority. But it seems like the evidence/argument here obviously stands up. [1] https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/30/world/coronavirus-who-masks-recommendation-trnd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/30/world/coronavirus-who-masks-r... [2] https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/03/02/coronavirus-links-speculation-open-thread/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/03/02/coronavirus-links-spec... , search for "bungled its coronavirus response pretty egregiously"
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
Even among qualified people the ones that are so dedicated to the art of pontificating online that they feel compelled to blog about their ideas tend to also be the rabidly absolutist ones who's advice you should take with a grain of salt.
Yetanfou 6y ago
Well, all I can say is that you passed the test for internet literacy in the current era - you did not just believe what you read, choosing to ask yourself what expertise the writer brought to the article other than the knowledge how to get it out there on the 'net. This is a legitimate question, one which should be asked more often. The answer does not lie in only trusting "experts" since they are often wrong, the difference being that they're (hopefully) so from drawing the wrong conclusions after having studied the subject matter in an honest way. So, instead of trusting random "experts" and distrusting "non-experts" I'd suggest trusting things which come with a chain or net of proof, in this case that proof would have been a number of references to reliable studies on the spread of SARS2 in waiting rooms or similar environments versus the risk of being subject to one of the side effects from these new vaccines. I see no such proof here, only assumptions. I can go look for this proof myself but it would be better if the author did so, preferably from a diversity of sources (that is, countries in different geopolitical regions). Just like the web of trust can lend credibility to PGP keys, so can such a net of proof lend credibility to a claim.

kevinburke 6y ago

Well, one reason would be I was emailing my friends and family about the efficacy of wearing masks around the same time in March that the Surgeon General of the United States was posting on Twitter that masks don't work and the New York City Mayor was encouraging people to go to movie theaters and bars. I don't think arguing from authority has a really great track record this pandemic. The argument on the blog is pretty straight forward, and the data is all public.

gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
> I don't think arguing from authority has a really great track record this pandemic You're essentially arguing that you have authority as some credible interpreter of data. The takeaway is that practically no one seems to know how to manage the pandemic effectively, unless you want to resort to welding people inside their homes.

pickitupsnake 6y ago

He isn't providing medical advice. Waiting outside vs inside based on simple statistics...

EForEndeavour 6y ago

All else being equal, you're probably better off taking public health advice from a public health employee over a software developer. However, if the software developer raises an admittedly good point based on specific, verifiable information (in this case sourced from covid19-projections.com, which sources covidtracking.com, which in turn aggregates data from state public health authorities) which questions the pre-COVID practice of observing a vaccine recipient for 15 minutes, their occupation should not make their point any less valid. This wouldn't be the first time that a well-established best practice turned out to be exactly the wrong thing to do given new circumstances. The process of evaluating an argument should balance the informative value of the argument-maker's credentials without veering too far into gatekeeping or argument from authority (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority).

waterhouse 6y ago

The medical field, or at least its public-facing portion, seems to be full of people who are reluctant to propose anything novel if there aren't rock-solid studies justifying it, even when it's clear (even to laypeople) that an analysis of the expected costs and benefits does confidently justify it.[1][2] It's a similar kind of thing to "no one ever got fired for buying IBM". And if you look at the incentives of medical spokespeople, do they actually suffer if they give bad advice? Is Dr. Mike Ryan still executive director of the WHO health emergencies program? His Wikipedia page still says so; its link to the WHO website has rotted. Given that, it's precisely these guys, outsiders who think they're smarter (or less bound by rules or whatever) than those spokespeople, who are in a position to give us some of these important pieces of advice. Of course, that means you have to take them on evidence/argument rather than on authority. But it seems like the evidence/argument here obviously stands up. [1] https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/30/world/coronavirus-who-masks-recommendation-trnd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/30/world/coronavirus-who-masks-r... [2] https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/03/02/coronavirus-links-speculation-open-thread/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/03/02/coronavirus-links-spec... , search for "bungled its coronavirus response pretty egregiously"

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

Even among qualified people the ones that are so dedicated to the art of pontificating online that they feel compelled to blog about their ideas tend to also be the rabidly absolutist ones who's advice you should take with a grain of salt.

Yetanfou 6y ago

Well, all I can say is that you passed the test for internet literacy in the current era - you did not just believe what you read, choosing to ask yourself what expertise the writer brought to the article other than the knowledge how to get it out there on the 'net. This is a legitimate question, one which should be asked more often. The answer does not lie in only trusting "experts" since they are often wrong, the difference being that they're (hopefully) so from drawing the wrong conclusions after having studied the subject matter in an honest way. So, instead of trusting random "experts" and distrusting "non-experts" I'd suggest trusting things which come with a chain or net of proof, in this case that proof would have been a number of references to reliable studies on the spread of SARS2 in waiting rooms or similar environments versus the risk of being subject to one of the side effects from these new vaccines. I see no such proof here, only assumptions. I can go look for this proof myself but it would be better if the author did so, preferably from a diversity of sources (that is, countries in different geopolitical regions). Just like the web of trust can lend credibility to PGP keys, so can such a net of proof lend credibility to a claim.