3 ms·

The fact that we are commenting in a thread about a report on something that has an implied "this is bad for people" suggests experts know, to a good enough deg

The fact that we are commenting in a thread about a report on something that has an implied "this is bad for people" suggests experts know, to a good enough degree, about certain things that should be regulated better.

skybrian 4y ago
It implies that some people think it's bad, but not necessarily that they're right. It's not like every science article shared here is accurate or reflects scientific consensus. There's no heuristic shortcut for actually learning about the subject. Without doing the homework, all we can say is that it seems plausible that there might be a problem.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
  Given that these compounds are mass produced and spread all over the globe at an industrial scale, I think the plausibility of a problem should be sufficient for holding back. Especially when the compound is known to be non-degradable. Then we know, if there is a problem, we're gonna be stuck with it for a long time. Even more reason for extreme caution.
  - skybrian 4y ago
    It's reason for concern but not enough to make a convincing case. This is still trying to take a logical shortcut to avoid actually learning specifics about the problem. But if you don't learn anything then you're just another person saying their opinion on the Internet, like the rest of us.
    - mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
      My point is, I don't like this defeatist attitude of "well there's no way to know, so we should just do more of the same". Just because it's a very hard problem doesn't mean there isn't a lot more we could do. And a lot of the chemicals causing problems today could have been ruled out with far less effort than haphazardly testing it on the whole world population. I don't see why so many people these days need to reduce everything to this type of false dichotomy. And it's also a question of how much concern is enough? I would argue that currently the threshold is set far, far too high.
      - skybrian 4y ago
        I never said there's no way to know. What I'm saying is that those of us who haven't studied should be humble about how much we know. It's a choice we make all the time. For anything you read about, are you curious enough to investigate it further, or are you going to let it go by?
        mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
        Right. I'm a pretty bad example because I obsessively investigate further. I can't help it. I see something, I need to understand it. It's my curse in life.

skybrian 4y ago

It implies that some people think it's bad, but not necessarily that they're right. It's not like every science article shared here is accurate or reflects scientific consensus. There's no heuristic shortcut for actually learning about the subject. Without doing the homework, all we can say is that it seems plausible that there might be a problem.

mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
Given that these compounds are mass produced and spread all over the globe at an industrial scale, I think the plausibility of a problem should be sufficient for holding back. Especially when the compound is known to be non-degradable. Then we know, if there is a problem, we're gonna be stuck with it for a long time. Even more reason for extreme caution.
- skybrian 4y ago
  It's reason for concern but not enough to make a convincing case. This is still trying to take a logical shortcut to avoid actually learning specifics about the problem. But if you don't learn anything then you're just another person saying their opinion on the Internet, like the rest of us.
  - mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
    My point is, I don't like this defeatist attitude of "well there's no way to know, so we should just do more of the same". Just because it's a very hard problem doesn't mean there isn't a lot more we could do. And a lot of the chemicals causing problems today could have been ruled out with far less effort than haphazardly testing it on the whole world population. I don't see why so many people these days need to reduce everything to this type of false dichotomy. And it's also a question of how much concern is enough? I would argue that currently the threshold is set far, far too high.
    - skybrian 4y ago
      I never said there's no way to know. What I'm saying is that those of us who haven't studied should be humble about how much we know. It's a choice we make all the time. For anything you read about, are you curious enough to investigate it further, or are you going to let it go by?
      - mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
        Right. I'm a pretty bad example because I obsessively investigate further. I can't help it. I see something, I need to understand it. It's my curse in life.