5 ms·
> No we don’t. Asbestos and others became such an issue because people didn’t notice the damage they inferred it after the fact based on exposure. Isn’t every
by zibby8 4y ago
> No we don’t. Asbestos and others became such an issue because people didn’t notice the damage they inferred it after the fact based on exposure.
Isn’t every observation just a causal inference after the fact?
Look, you’re free to attempt to quantify the impact. Either via direct measurement or a theoretical calculation. However, a baseless opination without any data backing it up isn’t that convincing or interesting.
- Retric 4y ago> Isn’t every observation just a causal inference after the fact? No, instinctive reflex for example is a response to a stimulus without inference. If uranium had a horrific taste the radium girls wouldn’t have licked their uranium paint brushes thus avoiding Radium jaw. Horrific taste doesn’t always mean something is harmful, but it generally causes people to limit ingestion.
- zibby8 4y agoHow is “I licked my paint brush and then my mouth tasted bad” not causal inference?
- Retric 4y agoBad taste is simply a perception, you’re making an inference that the bad taste was caused by something but the perception precedes the inference. Further the perception and response to that taste isn’t a inference that something is physically harmful. You can dislike perfectly healthy food. That said, if uranium had a bad taste people wouldn’t have been as harmed demonstrating the lack of perception of the initial minute harm resulted in greater long term harm.