3 ms·
Reversal is fair. I assume it’s permanent. > This poses a catch-22: young women are denied the care they request because there is not enough data on the care t
by oneoff786 4y ago
Reversal is fair. I assume it’s permanent.
> This poses a catch-22: young women are denied the care they request because there is not enough data on the care they request. Surely, the nature of the circular logic must confound you as well. Functionally it's the same as simply denying care.
Lack of evidence of no harm is a hard sell against priors that assume harm.
- kelseyfrog 4y agoIt feels too close to being asked to prove a negative. Why not simply have an uninformative prior rather than a strong harm prior? Based on the discussion we've hard so far, it sounds like your prior is conditioned in some way, and to find the means by which it is is precisely why I'm digging[1]. 1. at this point probably pestering