3 ms·
One of the major problems translating "science to advice" is the need to specify a risk/reward model for the person being advised. If P(TheScience) = 0.01, but
by mjburgess 4y ago
One of the major problems translating "science to advice" is the need to specify a risk/reward model for the person being advised.
If P(TheScience) = 0.01, but P(GeneralInjury|TheScience) = 0.00000000000...1, and P(GeneralBenefit|TheScience) = 0.5 .... then most people should do "what the science says".
Of course there's P(MyBenefit|TheScience) and P(MyInjury|TheScience) which makes rendering general advise often impossible/unethical.
There's a class of people (eg., neurodivergent, autoimmune problems, etc.) for whom P(MyInjury|...) is "anti-correlated" with P(GeneralInjury|...)
...which leads to more pronounced mistrust regarding medical interventions.
- chickenimprint 4y agoWhat do you mean by P(TheScience) ?
- mjburgess 4y agoThe confidence we have that the relevant scientific prescriptions are true.
- isitmadeofglass 4y agoThat’s an odd use of notation. Typically P(A|B) is used to denote probabilities of outcomes.
- wizzwizz4 4y agoP(A|B) denotes the probability of A, given B: out of all the "possible worlds" where B is true, in what proportion is A true? P(B) denotes the probability of B given no additional constraints: it's the same as saying P(B|true).
- mjburgess 4y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability
- chickenimprint 4y agoOh, prescriptions, that makes a lot more sense. As you rightly point out, science is not prescriptive, only descriptive.