4 ms·

While you make very good points, I think as society we are quite quick at discounting unknown unknowns in this case. Science and diagnostic methods have advance

by sph 3y ago

While you make very good points, I think as society we are quite quick at discounting unknown unknowns in this case. Science and diagnostic methods have advanced a lot, but it is not at all improbable that there is some kind of man-made factor that also caused an increase in incidence of autism (or any other modern chronic disease, such as ADHD like I am). Being an unknown unknown, we literally cannot know until x decades later we find out, "ah yes, we used this chemical everywhere that had a measurable developmental effect on newborn. Whoopsie". Yet everyone keeps saying that's nonsense, let alone insulting and insensitive to even suggest that's the case. I am not saying there is proof for the contrary, mind you, just science and laymen should avoid the hubris of thinking we haven't made a mistake along the way. It would not be the first time. Radium in toothpaste, cigarettes for sore throat, cocaine in health tonics, DDT, teflon, and the other hundred teratogen chemicals we have given pregnant women over the decades.

falserum 3y ago
Problem is that unknown unknows are not actionable. You dont even know what or where to look for them. (Though I agree regarding hubris part)
- dennis_jeeves2 3y ago
  >Problem is that unknown unknows are not actionable. How about carefully testing something new, especially something that one ingests? As far as I know no such testing is done, if it's done, it's done with the goal of gaming the safety standards that may be expected of the product. You cannot fix an ignorant, corrupt society.
  - falserum 3y ago
    How extensive safety testing of a hammer should be? Should there be double blind clinical trials for it’s health impact when caried daily on a tool belt? For most people, answer will differ depending on what the hammer is made of (iron vs uranium vs radium). My point here would be that a) we must choose appropriate set of tests as they cost in money/time/opportunities, b) the choice of tests must be influenced by what we know and/or suspect. If unknown is unknown, then we don’t know that we need a test for it.

by sph 3y ago

falserum 3y ago

Problem is that unknown unknows are not actionable. You dont even know what or where to look for them. (Though I agree regarding hubris part)

dennis_jeeves2 3y ago
>Problem is that unknown unknows are not actionable. How about carefully testing something new, especially something that one ingests? As far as I know no such testing is done, if it's done, it's done with the goal of gaming the safety standards that may be expected of the product. You cannot fix an ignorant, corrupt society.
- falserum 3y ago
  How extensive safety testing of a hammer should be? Should there be double blind clinical trials for it’s health impact when caried daily on a tool belt? For most people, answer will differ depending on what the hammer is made of (iron vs uranium vs radium). My point here would be that a) we must choose appropriate set of tests as they cost in money/time/opportunities, b) the choice of tests must be influenced by what we know and/or suspect. If unknown is unknown, then we don’t know that we need a test for it.