3 ms·

> I didn't say blind to the reality, but blind to the risk specifically. Are you referring to some non-real type of risk, then? I think you may be, and given t

> I didn't say blind to the reality, but blind to the risk specifically. Are you referring to some non-real type of risk, then? I think you may be, and given that this is a subject outside of your wheelhouse you may want to consider that possibility as well. > Are you suggesting that there isn't additional risk to driving a car that's older and has known mechanical issues? I'm suggesting that experts may be able to both predict and price those risks more accurately than non-experts. This should be non-controversial. Consequently, cars which look to you as a nonexpert highly risky may not be. If that is true, as seems likely to me, the rest of your analogy falls apart. > Or are you suggesting experts are impervious to analysis? I'm suggesting that more likely explanations than "the experts are wrong and I am right" exist.

akira2501 4y ago
> Are you referring to some non-real type of risk, then? No, I was concerned that's what you were attempting to project into my argument, so I wanted to make it clear. > I think you may be, and given that this is a subject outside of your wheelhouse you may want to consider that possibility as well. You continue to prosecute this as if it's an insult that I've laid out and that basic logic couldn't possibly apply to an exceptionally obvious situation. Older equipment brings higher risk. If you can't accept that basic premise, then there's not much for us to discuss here. > I'm suggesting that experts may be able to both predict and price those risks more accurately than non-experts. This should be non-controversial. "May be." Well.. precisely. So, here's a possibly illuminating set of questions.. how do you tell the difference between the two? What is the expected ratio of the two groups? What mechanisms might you use to determine this? > Consequently, cars which look to you as a nonexpert highly risky may not be. If that is true, as seems likely to me, the rest of your analogy falls apart. I said "additional risk." You're trying very hard to be insulted on behalf of another group and you keep dragging the argument towards that end without seriously considering what I'm saying. I get it, you think my opinion is shallow and unearned, but all you're doing is muddying the conversation with this odd back and forth rather than present _any_ data which could simply make your point for you. > I'm suggesting that more likely explanations than "the experts are wrong and I am right" exist. That's hardly my explanation and you're being pretty uncharitable to try to twist this conversation into this made up point. Further, you're presuming that everyone who works on cars is some level of "expert" which would obviate their decisions from any scrutiny from someone who doesn't. That's obviously a flawed point of view with an entire human history of counter examples that thankfully have informed our modern ideas of safety and technological management.
- debatem1 4y ago
  > Older equipment brings higher risk. If you can't accept that basic premise, then there's not much for us to discuss here. Ok, not much to discuss here then: you are quite wrong in cases mechanics encounter all the time, and too confident to seriously examine the possibility of your wrongness. Good luck out there.

akira2501 4y ago

> Are you referring to some non-real type of risk, then? No, I was concerned that's what you were attempting to project into my argument, so I wanted to make it clear. > I think you may be, and given that this is a subject outside of your wheelhouse you may want to consider that possibility as well. You continue to prosecute this as if it's an insult that I've laid out and that basic logic couldn't possibly apply to an exceptionally obvious situation. Older equipment brings higher risk. If you can't accept that basic premise, then there's not much for us to discuss here. > I'm suggesting that experts may be able to both predict and price those risks more accurately than non-experts. This should be non-controversial. "May be." Well.. precisely. So, here's a possibly illuminating set of questions.. how do you tell the difference between the two? What is the expected ratio of the two groups? What mechanisms might you use to determine this? > Consequently, cars which look to you as a nonexpert highly risky may not be. If that is true, as seems likely to me, the rest of your analogy falls apart. I said "additional risk." You're trying very hard to be insulted on behalf of another group and you keep dragging the argument towards that end without seriously considering what I'm saying. I get it, you think my opinion is shallow and unearned, but all you're doing is muddying the conversation with this odd back and forth rather than present _any_ data which could simply make your point for you. > I'm suggesting that more likely explanations than "the experts are wrong and I am right" exist. That's hardly my explanation and you're being pretty uncharitable to try to twist this conversation into this made up point. Further, you're presuming that everyone who works on cars is some level of "expert" which would obviate their decisions from any scrutiny from someone who doesn't. That's obviously a flawed point of view with an entire human history of counter examples that thankfully have informed our modern ideas of safety and technological management.

debatem1 4y ago
> Older equipment brings higher risk. If you can't accept that basic premise, then there's not much for us to discuss here. Ok, not much to discuss here then: you are quite wrong in cases mechanics encounter all the time, and too confident to seriously examine the possibility of your wrongness. Good luck out there.