2 ms·

I've seen outrage about PFAS, eg the recent rainwater isn't safe to drink according to the EPA articles. There's also been many campaigns over the years about v

I've seen outrage about PFAS, eg the recent rainwater isn't safe to drink according to the EPA articles. There's also been many campaigns over the years about various chemical additives, eg BPA. You've also got lots of people rallying against user/overuse of pesticides and herbicides. I'd wager it's less that the Sacklers are an easy target (as shown by the continued lack of any consequences), but more that it's a slow build up of anger over the continued abuse of people for profit. Also, people are not stupid for trusting doctors. Are you not supposed to listen to professionals with usually more than a decade more of education in a specific field than you?

anonym29 4y ago
expertise != good decision making (https://www.rutgers.edu/news/expertise-liability-experts-may-overcompensate-decisions-when-told-they-are-wrong https://www.rutgers.edu/news/expertise-liability-experts-may...) You are about eight times more likely to be killed by a doctor than by an automobile accident, and only about 10% of such deaths are reported (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28186008/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28186008/). People are, empirically, objectively, and measurably stupid for trusting doctors more than they trust the safety of being in an automobile.
- gusgus01 4y ago
  I'm not saying expertise == good decision making, I'm saying there's a greater chance of an expert making the correct decision than a layman. That article also only talks about how experts can "double down" on mistakes (and only overprecision) when there is negative feedback, it doesn't comment on the validity of their decisions as compared to layman. Isn't that like the perfect example of comparing apples to oranges? Wouldn't the danger of trusting a doctor require comparing the outcome of trusting a doctor to the outcome of not trusting a doctor?

anonym29 4y ago

expertise != good decision making (https://www.rutgers.edu/news/expertise-liability-experts-may-overcompensate-decisions-when-told-they-are-wrong https://www.rutgers.edu/news/expertise-liability-experts-may...) You are about eight times more likely to be killed by a doctor than by an automobile accident, and only about 10% of such deaths are reported (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28186008/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28186008/). People are, empirically, objectively, and measurably stupid for trusting doctors more than they trust the safety of being in an automobile.

gusgus01 4y ago
I'm not saying expertise == good decision making, I'm saying there's a greater chance of an expert making the correct decision than a layman. That article also only talks about how experts can "double down" on mistakes (and only overprecision) when there is negative feedback, it doesn't comment on the validity of their decisions as compared to layman. Isn't that like the perfect example of comparing apples to oranges? Wouldn't the danger of trusting a doctor require comparing the outcome of trusting a doctor to the outcome of not trusting a doctor?