3 ms·

I’m more in agreement with him as opposed to your viewpoint. FWIW I have a degree in formal logic, and his logic is not “wrong”. I’d very much like to hear how

I’m more in agreement with him as opposed to your viewpoint. FWIW I have a degree in formal logic, and his logic is not “wrong”. I’d very much like to hear how it is. :)

physicles 4y ago
It seems you're focusing on the fact that a conditional statement can be logically true independent of whether its hypothesis itself has any merit. (e.g. the proposition "If the sun goes dark tomorrow, then within a few years most people on earth will almost certainly be dead" is sound, even if the sun probably doesn't go dark tomorrow) But like GP said, the conditional statements themselves presuppose that vaccines are the only variable affecting life expectancy. But that's not true, there are other factors.
- dumbplestilskin 4y ago
  It’s the inversion of your propositional case, however. His claim is not that the vaccine has caused extra deaths (the sun goes dark) but rather that if the vaccine is unsafe in -some- or all causes then mortality would increase on average. (if more people get sunburned from a hotter sun, we will see more skin cancer) It follows, and my interpretation of the data is that the vaccines are causing some issues or not giving enough protection for some individuals while working for others, and obesity and other factors also increased. Terribly boring, wouldn’t you agree? But often the boring data is the correct data, or in other words: averages tend to represent a trend better than outliers.
  - Bakary 4y ago
    The commenter at the top of the tree was implying a degree of unsafety in their premise that was sufficient to overpower other possible statistical causes. In the current discussion, this is a very close equivalent to stating that the vaccine caused extra deaths. To keep to the metaphor, the statement that the sun is hotter is already a huge claim in need of evidence rather than a starting premise. If we accept that as a premise, it becomes difficult to explain why for instance the Canadian life expectancy increased in 2021 as another commenter noted, despite being society that is similar in many ways but with a higher vaccination rate. >Terribly boring, wouldn’t you agree? But often the boring data is the correct data, or in other words: averages tend to represent a trend better than outliers. I agree with this advice, hence the need to look at countries outside of the US and to consider the US's traditional life expectancy woes compared to other developed or OECD countries.
    - dumbplestilskin 4y ago
      [dead]

I’m more in agreement with him as opposed to your viewpoint. FWIW I have a degree in formal logic, and his logic is not “wrong”. I’d very much like to hear how it is. :)

physicles 4y ago

It seems you're focusing on the fact that a conditional statement can be logically true independent of whether its hypothesis itself has any merit. (e.g. the proposition "If the sun goes dark tomorrow, then within a few years most people on earth will almost certainly be dead" is sound, even if the sun probably doesn't go dark tomorrow) But like GP said, the conditional statements themselves presuppose that vaccines are the only variable affecting life expectancy. But that's not true, there are other factors.

dumbplestilskin 4y ago
It’s the inversion of your propositional case, however. His claim is not that the vaccine has caused extra deaths (the sun goes dark) but rather that if the vaccine is unsafe in -some- or all causes then mortality would increase on average. (if more people get sunburned from a hotter sun, we will see more skin cancer) It follows, and my interpretation of the data is that the vaccines are causing some issues or not giving enough protection for some individuals while working for others, and obesity and other factors also increased. Terribly boring, wouldn’t you agree? But often the boring data is the correct data, or in other words: averages tend to represent a trend better than outliers.
- Bakary 4y ago
  The commenter at the top of the tree was implying a degree of unsafety in their premise that was sufficient to overpower other possible statistical causes. In the current discussion, this is a very close equivalent to stating that the vaccine caused extra deaths. To keep to the metaphor, the statement that the sun is hotter is already a huge claim in need of evidence rather than a starting premise. If we accept that as a premise, it becomes difficult to explain why for instance the Canadian life expectancy increased in 2021 as another commenter noted, despite being society that is similar in many ways but with a higher vaccination rate. >Terribly boring, wouldn’t you agree? But often the boring data is the correct data, or in other words: averages tend to represent a trend better than outliers. I agree with this advice, hence the need to look at countries outside of the US and to consider the US's traditional life expectancy woes compared to other developed or OECD countries.
  - dumbplestilskin 4y ago
    [dead]