3 ms·

Thank you. I've posted elsewhere in the thread about my own opinion that I believe the main issue we have is not with trust in the scientific sense (e.g. I thi

by throwaway22032 5y ago

Thank you. I've posted elsewhere in the thread about my own opinion that I believe the main issue we have is not with trust in the scientific sense (e.g. I think that most people generally _do_ believe that epidemiologists know what they're doing and that the outliers are exceptions), but with trust in the plan of action e.g. the entire chain of process. Examples, all primarily via trust (I'm not a biologist): I believe that excessive consumption of sugar can cause diabetes. I know that alcohol can (will, given enough time) cause liver disease. I know that driving my car drastically increases my risk of being in a car accident and therefore meeting a swift end, an agonising end, or perhaps a lifetime of disability. I still engage in those activities despite the downsides because I believe them to be of net benefit, both to myself and to society as a whole. I'm willing to fully argue through that process. Where I think the issue lies at present is that we're sorely lacking in convincing full-chain argumentation. A person can trust that the UK health authorities know their stuff, they can believe that coronavirus exists and can be dangerous, but that doesn't solve the problem of whether or not they should skip out on their friend's birthday party or not. It only makes up a very small part of the jigsaw puzzle, the rest still has to be filled in somehow.

gilleain 5y ago
Agreed, it can be very difficult for anyone to make useful decisions outside of just trusting the existing consensus. I mean there is no real way for me to know if a vaccine is safe. I assume it is, and prefer to gamble on it not harming me and potentially helping the current situation. But there is really no way for me to know for sure. To put it another way, when the Omicron variant emerged, there were newspaper articles that often showed pictures of the spike protein labelled with different mutations. As it happens, I did research in protein structural bioinformatics, so I have a good idea what the detail in these images 'mean' in a certain sense. However they are of zero use in making a single meaningful decision about how to alter my behaviour (or not!). Of course, the journalists add these images as decoration, but to me it symbolises the mass of irrelevant detail provided. Which is not the same as saying 'just believe science!' as that is also wrong and unhelpful. I'm not sure what the answer is, really.
raxxorrax 5y ago
An interior minister that is dutiful will most likely always opt for more surveillance. Safety of every citizen is his responsibility and he would not leave anything to chance. If if the minister is no friend of authoritarianism, his position will most likely encourage certain policies in a predictable way. But that safety has to be balanced at some point. Same is true for any ministry of health. Dying sober might not be the preference of everyone and optimizing on a trivial metric might do a lot of wrong. In fact I believe most people would be horrified to lead a completely rational and reasonable life.

gilleain 5y ago

Agreed, it can be very difficult for anyone to make useful decisions outside of just trusting the existing consensus. I mean there is no real way for me to know if a vaccine is safe. I assume it is, and prefer to gamble on it not harming me and potentially helping the current situation. But there is really no way for me to know for sure. To put it another way, when the Omicron variant emerged, there were newspaper articles that often showed pictures of the spike protein labelled with different mutations. As it happens, I did research in protein structural bioinformatics, so I have a good idea what the detail in these images 'mean' in a certain sense. However they are of zero use in making a single meaningful decision about how to alter my behaviour (or not!). Of course, the journalists add these images as decoration, but to me it symbolises the mass of irrelevant detail provided. Which is not the same as saying 'just believe science!' as that is also wrong and unhelpful. I'm not sure what the answer is, really.

raxxorrax 5y ago

An interior minister that is dutiful will most likely always opt for more surveillance. Safety of every citizen is his responsibility and he would not leave anything to chance. If if the minister is no friend of authoritarianism, his position will most likely encourage certain policies in a predictable way. But that safety has to be balanced at some point. Same is true for any ministry of health. Dying sober might not be the preference of everyone and optimizing on a trivial metric might do a lot of wrong. In fact I believe most people would be horrified to lead a completely rational and reasonable life.