4 ms·

If you and I are experts, and I gave you a hundred pieces of evidence, and you were already convinced by the 20th piece of evidence, and they're all complicated

If you and I are experts, and I gave you a hundred pieces of evidence, and you were already convinced by the 20th piece of evidence, and they're all complicated and hard to understand, and then I gave you one more piece of evidence that had a really easy to understand statistic you could easily share with lay people, how would you communicate with the public? Would you purposefully avoid sharing the really easy to understand statistic? Would someone be correct that that one piece of evidence was "what convinced you?" You and I don't know how heavily this study weighed in their deliberations, and we especially don't know it to a degree of certainty to say "THE STUDY THAT CONVINCED THE CDC."

josephcsible 5y ago
If the CDC intentionally chose to lie to the public about their reason for a decision, that's really really bad.
- lghh 5y ago
  I don't see any evidence that they intentionally chose to lie. Do you?
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    I suppose I could have worded that more clearly. I wasn't saying they did in real life. I was continuing a hypothetical started in the comment I replied to, and in the hypothetical they obviously did.
- VikingCoder 5y ago
  If josephcsible intentionally chose to lie about running a dog fighting club, that's really really bad. I have as much evidence for my bad faith statement as you do for yours.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    I'm not saying that the CDC actually did lie in this case. I'm continuing the hypothetical from your previous comment, where you said that the CDC would be convinced by evidence piece #20, but then tell the public that they were convinced by evidence piece #21.
    - VikingCoder 5y ago
      They did not "then tell the public" that "the one that convinced them" was this one study. In communicating with the public, they happened to cite #21, because explaining all 21 would take too long and be confusing for you, and be distracting. Refuting the specific evidence in #21 does not directly refute the other 20, and does not make the conclusion "Junk Science" as the headline apparently unintentionally implied. And the headline had no business saying "The study," when they have no idea how many studies the CDC internally considered.
lghh 5y ago
Me: "Hi boss, because of Y the company needs to do X". Boss: "Okay". a few days later Boss: "Y is not true, we should re-evaluate X since Y is what convinced us" This would be a totally fair exchange and 100% correct. It does not matter if there are 5 other things that prompted me to bring this up to my boss. I hung my hat on Y being true and that's how I presented it. It's what convinced us. It shouldn't be a big deal for me, as an adult and a professional, to say "yep, I messed up. here's the other reasons to still do X."
- Bud 5y ago
  CDC does admit things like that, and changes its advice all the time based on evolving facts. Every day, practically. Which is why they have 100x more credibility than some uncredentialed anti-masker with an axe to grind.
  - lghh 5y ago
    I agree! In fact, they just did it with their 5-day quarantine recommendation. Which is why I think it's important that the facts they use to publicly justify their decision are under constant scrutiny. If they are not, the CDC's credibility disintegrates. I'm glad we're both on the same page.
    - VikingCoder 5y ago
      There are reasonable discussions to be had about the CDC's credibility. Then there are bad faith discussions about the CDC's credibility. Are you aware that repeatedly exposing someone to false information leads them to believe it? If you start from the belief that the CDC is credible, you can use phrases like, "The CDC made a mistake in relying on this study." If you start from the belief that the CDC is not credible, you would can use phrases like "CDC / Junk Science." You could, as another commented on this thread, say "If the CDC intentionally chose to lie to the public about their reason for a decision, that's really really bad." There's is ZERO EVIDENCE that they intentionally lied. That's like me saying, "If user lghh was involved in dog fighting, that's really really bad." I have no evidence of it, and it gives people a bad impression of you. The CDC has well-earned credibility, and the people who are questioning the CDC most effectively in the public circle (Fox News, Infowars, Joe Rogan) should have lost any credibility they had long, long ago. But questioning the CDC is profitable. People are exploiting fears to make money. So, if you want to engage in good faith discussions, that's awesome. But maybe, just maybe, avoid phrases like "The study (implying there was only one) that convinced the CDC to support mask mandates in schools is JUNK SCIENCE!"

josephcsible 5y ago

If the CDC intentionally chose to lie to the public about their reason for a decision, that's really really bad.

lghh 5y ago
I don't see any evidence that they intentionally chose to lie. Do you?
- josephcsible 5y ago
  I suppose I could have worded that more clearly. I wasn't saying they did in real life. I was continuing a hypothetical started in the comment I replied to, and in the hypothetical they obviously did.
VikingCoder 5y ago
If josephcsible intentionally chose to lie about running a dog fighting club, that's really really bad. I have as much evidence for my bad faith statement as you do for yours.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  I'm not saying that the CDC actually did lie in this case. I'm continuing the hypothetical from your previous comment, where you said that the CDC would be convinced by evidence piece #20, but then tell the public that they were convinced by evidence piece #21.
  - VikingCoder 5y ago
    They did not "then tell the public" that "the one that convinced them" was this one study. In communicating with the public, they happened to cite #21, because explaining all 21 would take too long and be confusing for you, and be distracting. Refuting the specific evidence in #21 does not directly refute the other 20, and does not make the conclusion "Junk Science" as the headline apparently unintentionally implied. And the headline had no business saying "The study," when they have no idea how many studies the CDC internally considered.

lghh 5y ago

Me: "Hi boss, because of Y the company needs to do X". Boss: "Okay". a few days later Boss: "Y is not true, we should re-evaluate X since Y is what convinced us" This would be a totally fair exchange and 100% correct. It does not matter if there are 5 other things that prompted me to bring this up to my boss. I hung my hat on Y being true and that's how I presented it. It's what convinced us. It shouldn't be a big deal for me, as an adult and a professional, to say "yep, I messed up. here's the other reasons to still do X."

Bud 5y ago
CDC does admit things like that, and changes its advice all the time based on evolving facts. Every day, practically. Which is why they have 100x more credibility than some uncredentialed anti-masker with an axe to grind.
- lghh 5y ago
  I agree! In fact, they just did it with their 5-day quarantine recommendation. Which is why I think it's important that the facts they use to publicly justify their decision are under constant scrutiny. If they are not, the CDC's credibility disintegrates. I'm glad we're both on the same page.
  - VikingCoder 5y ago
    There are reasonable discussions to be had about the CDC's credibility. Then there are bad faith discussions about the CDC's credibility. Are you aware that repeatedly exposing someone to false information leads them to believe it? If you start from the belief that the CDC is credible, you can use phrases like, "The CDC made a mistake in relying on this study." If you start from the belief that the CDC is not credible, you would can use phrases like "CDC / Junk Science." You could, as another commented on this thread, say "If the CDC intentionally chose to lie to the public about their reason for a decision, that's really really bad." There's is ZERO EVIDENCE that they intentionally lied. That's like me saying, "If user lghh was involved in dog fighting, that's really really bad." I have no evidence of it, and it gives people a bad impression of you. The CDC has well-earned credibility, and the people who are questioning the CDC most effectively in the public circle (Fox News, Infowars, Joe Rogan) should have lost any credibility they had long, long ago. But questioning the CDC is profitable. People are exploiting fears to make money. So, if you want to engage in good faith discussions, that's awesome. But maybe, just maybe, avoid phrases like "The study (implying there was only one) that convinced the CDC to support mask mandates in schools is JUNK SCIENCE!"