4 ms·

You can ask “What if” of anything. We have limited information in almost every decision we make, yet we still have to decide (inaction is itself a decision). T

by awb 5y ago

You can ask “What if” of anything. We have limited information in almost every decision we make, yet we still have to decide (inaction is itself a decision). The key is what you fill in those bits of missing information with, not the results of the decision as no one is clairvoyant. This sounds like a gambler. “You’re putting $100 on black?” “Yeah, I could lose $100, but what if I’m right?” For both the gambler and the anti-vaxx you get 0 applause from me if you randomly guess a “what if” correctly. You only get credit if you had a hypothesis you could intelligently explain and then tested it robustly. Kind of like the scientific process. It’s fine to play “what if” games for fun, but not smart if you’re trying to play the odds, then you need more substance in your decision making. Like “what if eating vegetables ends up causing heart disease?” We’ve been wrong about nutrition before so “who knows?”

defaultprimate 5y ago
We're not talking about things occurring "randomly". We're taking about reasonable probability assessments based on available information. Those refusing the vaccination are operating with the same level of information about long term effects as those that get it: none. People that get the vaccine have no empirical evidence that it will be beneficial or not harmful in the long run. No long term data exists for the techniques or methodology. Your nutrition example is a great parallel because if we would have looked at the funding and long term data regarding the food pyramid, simple carbs, etc vs fats instead of just "trusting the experts" we wouldn't have an epidemic of obese, diabetic gen x and millennials. There's tons of sound empirical evidence about the long term health benefits of vegetables. It's complete false equivalence
- awb 5y ago
  > Those refusing the vaccination are operating with the same level of information about long term effects as those that get it: none When I create a website, hire someone, fire someone, etc., I have no knowledge of the decision’s long term effects. My one simple act could make the world a paradise or destroy it, but I have no evidence or reason to believe in either of those scenarios so I ignore it and focus on outcomes that seem reasonable given the information I have at the moment. It’s fine to question the long term effects of a decision, but if you’re doing so with no information or insight, you are just randomly guessing. So better than “what if X happens?” Is “what if Y causes X to happen because of Z?” Then we have the basis of a hypothesis that we can discuss. In the veggie example: “What if eating veggies causes heart disease because of Z?” “Z” is where the beef is :)
  - defaultprimate 5y ago
    >if you’re doing so with no information or insight, you are just randomly guessing. No you aren't. You are doing the empirically sound thing and accepting the null hypothesis, the baseline of being unvaccinated, in the absence of sufficient evidence that the long term effects of the vaccines are more beneficial than detrimental.
    - awb 5y ago
      Do you maintain the baseline of your current state of knowledge and not accept new information? New information could possibly have long-term negative effects. There is no sufficient evidence as to the long-term effect this conversation will have on you. Yet, you readily engage, why? Do you use any technology created in the last 20 years? 20 years isn’t long enough to properly study long term effects. Or take any medicine developed in the last 40 years? We jump into the unknown every day. You’re free to make whatever decisions you please, but when you make the decision to maintain your current baseline and reject a new option, ideally you’re doing that out of some informed position or rational fear and not simply because that option is new. That’s why the interesting conversation to me isn’t “I’m waiting to take the vaccine until we understand the long term effects.”, it’s “I’m waiting to take the vaccine until we understand the long term effects because _______”. That’s where the meat is because it helps convey why this decision isn’t like discussing a new topic or using a cellphone or taking Lipitor.
      - defaultprimate 5y ago
        You clearly do not understand the scientific method or empiricism. How about this? "I'm waiting to take the vaccine until we understand the long term effects because no data exists regarding them and it would be empirically and scientifically unsound to confirm a hypothesis (that the vaccine's long term benefits outweigh the costs) without sufficient evidence to overrule the null hypothesis and default state of being unvaccinated."
        awb 5y ago

by awb 5y ago

defaultprimate 5y ago

We're not talking about things occurring "randomly". We're taking about reasonable probability assessments based on available information. Those refusing the vaccination are operating with the same level of information about long term effects as those that get it: none. People that get the vaccine have no empirical evidence that it will be beneficial or not harmful in the long run. No long term data exists for the techniques or methodology. Your nutrition example is a great parallel because if we would have looked at the funding and long term data regarding the food pyramid, simple carbs, etc vs fats instead of just "trusting the experts" we wouldn't have an epidemic of obese, diabetic gen x and millennials. There's tons of sound empirical evidence about the long term health benefits of vegetables. It's complete false equivalence

awb 5y ago
> Those refusing the vaccination are operating with the same level of information about long term effects as those that get it: none When I create a website, hire someone, fire someone, etc., I have no knowledge of the decision’s long term effects. My one simple act could make the world a paradise or destroy it, but I have no evidence or reason to believe in either of those scenarios so I ignore it and focus on outcomes that seem reasonable given the information I have at the moment. It’s fine to question the long term effects of a decision, but if you’re doing so with no information or insight, you are just randomly guessing. So better than “what if X happens?” Is “what if Y causes X to happen because of Z?” Then we have the basis of a hypothesis that we can discuss. In the veggie example: “What if eating veggies causes heart disease because of Z?” “Z” is where the beef is :)
- defaultprimate 5y ago
  >if you’re doing so with no information or insight, you are just randomly guessing. No you aren't. You are doing the empirically sound thing and accepting the null hypothesis, the baseline of being unvaccinated, in the absence of sufficient evidence that the long term effects of the vaccines are more beneficial than detrimental.
  - awb 5y ago
    Do you maintain the baseline of your current state of knowledge and not accept new information? New information could possibly have long-term negative effects. There is no sufficient evidence as to the long-term effect this conversation will have on you. Yet, you readily engage, why? Do you use any technology created in the last 20 years? 20 years isn’t long enough to properly study long term effects. Or take any medicine developed in the last 40 years? We jump into the unknown every day. You’re free to make whatever decisions you please, but when you make the decision to maintain your current baseline and reject a new option, ideally you’re doing that out of some informed position or rational fear and not simply because that option is new. That’s why the interesting conversation to me isn’t “I’m waiting to take the vaccine until we understand the long term effects.”, it’s “I’m waiting to take the vaccine until we understand the long term effects because _______”. That’s where the meat is because it helps convey why this decision isn’t like discussing a new topic or using a cellphone or taking Lipitor.
    - defaultprimate 5y ago
      You clearly do not understand the scientific method or empiricism. How about this? "I'm waiting to take the vaccine until we understand the long term effects because no data exists regarding them and it would be empirically and scientifically unsound to confirm a hypothesis (that the vaccine's long term benefits outweigh the costs) without sufficient evidence to overrule the null hypothesis and default state of being unvaccinated."
      - awb 5y ago