4 ms·

This turns into "no true Scotsman" pretty quickly. I was a (relative) loudmouth about my position for over a year, since we didn't have access to home tests in

This turns into "no true Scotsman" pretty quickly. I was a (relative) loudmouth about my position for over a year, since we didn't have access to home tests in the US until 2022. It was a very heated topic, since I often proposed testing as a preferred alternative to ineffective mask mandates that were popular where I live, and when my wish finally came true, I had to admit I had been wrong. If changing one's mind about something of that magnitude doesn't count, the principle is badly overstated.

P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
Yet another case of someone being overly confident in an opinion that had no basis in fact. Imagine if you had looked up to realize the flu hasn't gone to near zero with testing, so why in the world would you think something as unknown as covid would? Of course that didn't stop many like you from attacking those who tried to call for caution. So while it's "nice" that you eventually changed your mind, consider being more open-minded at the start.
- deadpannini 4y ago
  This is all beside the point at hand, but I suppose it's still about epistemology, so I'd like to stand up for my old position, even though I understand it looks foolish in retrospect. The fact that so much was unknown was part of the reason I thought testing might have a different effect than the flu. Well into the pandemic, the vast majority of people feared COVID much more than the flu, so it seemed they would be much more likely to take precautions to avoid getting it or spreading it. But that fear attenuated over time, especially as people lost trust in the alarmist if-it-bleeds-it-leads coverage. Finally, your hostility is unwarranted: I am and have been a strong proponent of vaccines and I was fully on board to "flatten the curve", even for a short period of lockdowns. But I am not and never have been in favor of permanent midnight.
  - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
    Your position looked foolish then. Consider that maybe you don't do well in situations without perfect information and take that into account in the future. The two most authoritarian countries on this earth (china and North Korea) were not able to get covid "to near zero". China literally had tanks rolling up and down their streets to enforce said curfew. The idea that somehow the US (or similar western countries) were ever going to get there was always outlandish, as was the idea that it was worth giving up what makes us different from China and NK to do so (Australia is struggling with this question now). --- Assumptions you made. 1. That human behavior was anywhere near the major deciding factor in covid transmission approaching zero 2. That covid transmission approaching zero was the most important factor #2 is akin to always turning right in a vehicle because safety is the only concern. It was NEVER a good thought process. --- And finally, the point here isn't that there were a lot of unknowns, it's that many people were RIGHT, and they got shouted down by people like you whose thinking was entirely flawed. There's a canyon of difference between being wrong because you just didn't know and being wrong because the entire platform you were basing it on turned out to be wrong.
    - deadpannini 4y ago
      I think you should perhaps cool down. 1) I am admitting that I was wrong and updated. That includes updating on my thought process, just like you are so ardently suggesting. 2) Ninety percent of your assumptions about me are wrong. I'm not sure what you're accusing me of, or what "many people were RIGHT" about. > There's a canyon of difference between being wrong because you just didn't know and being wrong because the entire platform you were basing it on turned out to be wrong. What is the "platform" I was basing it on?
      - bombcar 4y ago
        If I were to be charitable to the post you're replying to, they're trying to show that your takeaway is wrong - instead of saying you changed your mind based on new evidence you should instead say "I was wrong to think I had the knowledge, training, or skills to make a decision and use that decision to influence others".

P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago

Yet another case of someone being overly confident in an opinion that had no basis in fact. Imagine if you had looked up to realize the flu hasn't gone to near zero with testing, so why in the world would you think something as unknown as covid would? Of course that didn't stop many like you from attacking those who tried to call for caution. So while it's "nice" that you eventually changed your mind, consider being more open-minded at the start.

deadpannini 4y ago
This is all beside the point at hand, but I suppose it's still about epistemology, so I'd like to stand up for my old position, even though I understand it looks foolish in retrospect. The fact that so much was unknown was part of the reason I thought testing might have a different effect than the flu. Well into the pandemic, the vast majority of people feared COVID much more than the flu, so it seemed they would be much more likely to take precautions to avoid getting it or spreading it. But that fear attenuated over time, especially as people lost trust in the alarmist if-it-bleeds-it-leads coverage. Finally, your hostility is unwarranted: I am and have been a strong proponent of vaccines and I was fully on board to "flatten the curve", even for a short period of lockdowns. But I am not and never have been in favor of permanent midnight.
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
  Your position looked foolish then. Consider that maybe you don't do well in situations without perfect information and take that into account in the future. The two most authoritarian countries on this earth (china and North Korea) were not able to get covid "to near zero". China literally had tanks rolling up and down their streets to enforce said curfew. The idea that somehow the US (or similar western countries) were ever going to get there was always outlandish, as was the idea that it was worth giving up what makes us different from China and NK to do so (Australia is struggling with this question now). --- Assumptions you made. 1. That human behavior was anywhere near the major deciding factor in covid transmission approaching zero 2. That covid transmission approaching zero was the most important factor #2 is akin to always turning right in a vehicle because safety is the only concern. It was NEVER a good thought process. --- And finally, the point here isn't that there were a lot of unknowns, it's that many people were RIGHT, and they got shouted down by people like you whose thinking was entirely flawed. There's a canyon of difference between being wrong because you just didn't know and being wrong because the entire platform you were basing it on turned out to be wrong.
  - deadpannini 4y ago
    I think you should perhaps cool down. 1) I am admitting that I was wrong and updated. That includes updating on my thought process, just like you are so ardently suggesting. 2) Ninety percent of your assumptions about me are wrong. I'm not sure what you're accusing me of, or what "many people were RIGHT" about. > There's a canyon of difference between being wrong because you just didn't know and being wrong because the entire platform you were basing it on turned out to be wrong. What is the "platform" I was basing it on?
    - bombcar 4y ago
      If I were to be charitable to the post you're replying to, they're trying to show that your takeaway is wrong - instead of saying you changed your mind based on new evidence you should instead say "I was wrong to think I had the knowledge, training, or skills to make a decision and use that decision to influence others".