10 ms·

'just follow the rules'... that's exactly how we get the blind unreasonableness we're seeing everywhere. you need to examine your assumption that masks are doin

'just follow the rules'... that's exactly how we get the blind unreasonableness we're seeing everywhere. you need to examine your assumption that masks are doing anything at all in most common situations, and then consider what's actually reasonable vs. what you've rationalized yourself into. humility is missing in your thrust to convince others of your correctness.

CamperBob2 5y ago
Unless I'm a qualified medical researcher, how exactly am I supposed to "examine my assumption?"
- clairity 5y ago
  exactly how you form opinions everyday without having deep knowledge of a given domain. perhaps also read up on the appeal to authority fallacy[0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
  - CamperBob2 5y ago
    Maybe you need to do some reading. Appeal to authority is a fallacy only when the appeal is to an unrelated authority. If I rely on public health authorities in determining how to deal with the pandemic, I'm in the clear, logically speaking.
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      If you rely on reliable public health authorities for pandemic-related advice, you're in the clear, logically speaking. If you rely on unreliable public health authorities, you might feel OK about your choice, but you're not in the clear, logically.
      - swader999 5y ago
        How did you get informed enough to decide which public health authorities were the right ones to trust?
        stevofolife 5y ago
        ^ Now come on folks I’m waiting for the answer too
        sokoloff 5y ago
        I don’t think any of them are reliable enough to cite, on their name alone, as the foundation for a logical argument where “because X said so” is treated as absolute ground truth. That’s the essence of the “appeal to authority” logical fallacy. Are they trustworthy enough to modify behavior in ways that appear proportionate to the risk when they make an recommendation and show their reasoning and whatever data they have? Yes, of course, but that’s no longer based on their name/reputation alone and, because it’s only a temporary behavior change, it has a much lower standard of proof.
    - raxxorrax 5y ago
      Government authorities don't always convey scientific information, so you shouldn't trust them without question. I think the CDC has enough bodies in their basement that they need to account to any trust issues. That doesn't mean they will always lie to you, but you have to get secondary sources if you are critical. And no, it isn't true what you say about the fallacy. It remains a fallacy if the only argument for a statement is authority of course.
  - oblio 5y ago
    > exactly how you form opinions everyday without having deep knowledge of a given domain Go out and talk to a lot of people. A decent chunk of the population form bad opinions about a lot of things and hold them until they die. Thinking is hard, learning/researching is exhausting, a lot of people will, amusingly, work very hard to avoid it :-)
    - clairity 5y ago
      sure, but we all hold crazy beliefs and bad opinions, not just a decent chunk of us. the amazing thing is that if, instead of trying to convince each other so hard, we averaged all our opinions together, we’d be collectively right much more than would seem possible. politics literally opposes this astonishing natural phenomenon. politics and ego are the enemy, not the wrongness that pervades the opinions of individuals.
Natsu 5y ago
I think you meant to reply to someone else, because you're quoting words that I didn't write. If I was running things, I would tell people that they have no power to punish anyone whatsoever and design the Covid rules with that in mind, making them focused entirely on helping people instead of controlling them.
- jjgreen 5y ago
  To be fair, "helping people comply with rules" and "just follow the rules" are pretty much synonymous.
  - Natsu 5y ago
    Properly understood, they're on opposite sides of the equation and as mentioned, I'd prefer not to do any punishment at all, because I feel like that cuts off most of the nonsense. So that means giving people masks if they don't have one or making reasonable accommodations where possible and making interventions about safety. But I know it's not quite so easy and especially now a lot of people are hardened and less willing to work together to smooth things over.
    - jjgreen 5y ago
      "Prefer" is pretty woolly, what happens when push comes to shove? "Well thank you for offering me that mask, but masks simply don't work" [hands you a copy of the DANMASK19 paper]. Do you punish the person why defies you or not?
      - Natsu 5y ago
        Yes, it's not easy. In general I prefer interventions like avoiding them, offering them an alternate way to shop (online/someone will gather a list of the items they want/etc.), or similar measures. I doubt there's any perfect answer. I do feel if things had been like "here's a mask" from the start, though, that there wouldn't be nearly as many people refusing them.
    - 5y ago
raxxorrax 5y ago
It isn't just humility as many such measures are by nature precautionary without any basis in facts at all. Certainty is certainly wrong, especially when we are talking about risk management. That will affect the message negatively.

CamperBob2 5y ago

Unless I'm a qualified medical researcher, how exactly am I supposed to "examine my assumption?"

clairity 5y ago
exactly how you form opinions everyday without having deep knowledge of a given domain. perhaps also read up on the appeal to authority fallacy[0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
- CamperBob2 5y ago
  Maybe you need to do some reading. Appeal to authority is a fallacy only when the appeal is to an unrelated authority. If I rely on public health authorities in determining how to deal with the pandemic, I'm in the clear, logically speaking.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    If you rely on reliable public health authorities for pandemic-related advice, you're in the clear, logically speaking. If you rely on unreliable public health authorities, you might feel OK about your choice, but you're not in the clear, logically.
    - swader999 5y ago
      How did you get informed enough to decide which public health authorities were the right ones to trust?
      - stevofolife 5y ago
        ^ Now come on folks I’m waiting for the answer too
      - sokoloff 5y ago
        I don’t think any of them are reliable enough to cite, on their name alone, as the foundation for a logical argument where “because X said so” is treated as absolute ground truth. That’s the essence of the “appeal to authority” logical fallacy. Are they trustworthy enough to modify behavior in ways that appear proportionate to the risk when they make an recommendation and show their reasoning and whatever data they have? Yes, of course, but that’s no longer based on their name/reputation alone and, because it’s only a temporary behavior change, it has a much lower standard of proof.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    Government authorities don't always convey scientific information, so you shouldn't trust them without question. I think the CDC has enough bodies in their basement that they need to account to any trust issues. That doesn't mean they will always lie to you, but you have to get secondary sources if you are critical. And no, it isn't true what you say about the fallacy. It remains a fallacy if the only argument for a statement is authority of course.
- oblio 5y ago
  > exactly how you form opinions everyday without having deep knowledge of a given domain Go out and talk to a lot of people. A decent chunk of the population form bad opinions about a lot of things and hold them until they die. Thinking is hard, learning/researching is exhausting, a lot of people will, amusingly, work very hard to avoid it :-)
  - clairity 5y ago
    sure, but we all hold crazy beliefs and bad opinions, not just a decent chunk of us. the amazing thing is that if, instead of trying to convince each other so hard, we averaged all our opinions together, we’d be collectively right much more than would seem possible. politics literally opposes this astonishing natural phenomenon. politics and ego are the enemy, not the wrongness that pervades the opinions of individuals.

Natsu 5y ago

I think you meant to reply to someone else, because you're quoting words that I didn't write. If I was running things, I would tell people that they have no power to punish anyone whatsoever and design the Covid rules with that in mind, making them focused entirely on helping people instead of controlling them.

jjgreen 5y ago
To be fair, "helping people comply with rules" and "just follow the rules" are pretty much synonymous.
- Natsu 5y ago
  Properly understood, they're on opposite sides of the equation and as mentioned, I'd prefer not to do any punishment at all, because I feel like that cuts off most of the nonsense. So that means giving people masks if they don't have one or making reasonable accommodations where possible and making interventions about safety. But I know it's not quite so easy and especially now a lot of people are hardened and less willing to work together to smooth things over.
  - jjgreen 5y ago
    "Prefer" is pretty woolly, what happens when push comes to shove? "Well thank you for offering me that mask, but masks simply don't work" [hands you a copy of the DANMASK19 paper]. Do you punish the person why defies you or not?
    - Natsu 5y ago
      Yes, it's not easy. In general I prefer interventions like avoiding them, offering them an alternate way to shop (online/someone will gather a list of the items they want/etc.), or similar measures. I doubt there's any perfect answer. I do feel if things had been like "here's a mask" from the start, though, that there wouldn't be nearly as many people refusing them.
  - 5y ago

raxxorrax 5y ago

It isn't just humility as many such measures are by nature precautionary without any basis in facts at all. Certainty is certainly wrong, especially when we are talking about risk management. That will affect the message negatively.