4 ms·

You are. When there's an active pandemic killing thousands (would become a million, just in this (outlier bad at responding to it) country), "science" doesn't r

by veidr 2y ago

You are. When there's an active pandemic killing thousands (would become a million, just in this (outlier bad at responding to it) country), "science" doesn't require having a peer-reviewed ten-year old study that has been published in Nature and survived challenges. In such circumstances, just being familiar with the latest related science, and the fundamental concept of science, qualifies you to take your best (informed) guess. Making kids wear masks made sense in absence of data that showed it wasn't effective, because it's been so effective with other, similarly airborne-transmissible diseases. > The “6 feet apart” social distancing recommendation forced on Americans by federal health officials was arbitrary and not based on science. Again, "we could wait to conduct studies whether 4 feet is good enough, or 9 feet is required; or we could take our best shot since thousands of people are dying each day", and base our decisions on scientific data previously collected, in extremely similar pandemic/transmissible-disease contexts, even if it might imperfectly match the present scenario.

insickness 2y ago
This is a slippery slope. These policies had a vast affect on the lives of millions of people. Business were shut down. Schools were closed. People were instructed to stay in their homes for years. Simply saying, "Well, we made our best guess," is absolutely not acceptable. When the government curbs human rights, they have an obligation to weigh and justify the costs with scientific evidence.
- blackbear_ 2y ago
  What is your suggested approach when there is no (reliable) scientific evidence for any course of action and not enough time to gather such (reliable) evidence? Note that not taking any action is also a decision that, in your framework, requires supporting evidence.
  - mike_hearn 2y ago
    Not taking action doesn't require supporting evidence, and insickness didn't propose a framework in which it does. There is at any moment an infinite number of things you could choose to not be doing. You can't collect evidence for not doing those things, as the amount of evidence required would also be infinite.
    - blackbear_ 2y ago
      Not taking any action is also a decision, and it has to be justified like anything else that will affect the health and lives of millions of people. You don't need to collect evidence for everything you choose not to be doing, all you need is evidence that the status quo is not worse than any other (known) alternative. In any case, my point was that you can't make decisions based on evidence when you are faced with a new situation for which there is no (reliable) evidence. In these cases some other approach is needed.
lurking15 2y ago
You're saying that random bureaucrats deserve unmitigated police power. That's authoritarian and despotic. In fact, average people have the ability and humility to do basic ground-level checks that authorities and academics almost never do - a simple ability to step back and say "does any of this even make sense in the context of my own life and what I'm observing?" All of this "advanced" knowledge of supposed-experts often clouds their judgment and just equips them with sophisticated reasoning ability to give themselves undeserved confidence in their own self-deception, grave errors and misunderstandings.
- craftkiller 2y ago
  Thats quite a leap. You're going from: "The best science we have available during this medical emergency suggests that increasing distance reduces transmission for similar diseases, so we are going to recommend people maintain a 6-foot distance." to "unmitigated police power [...] authoritarian and despotic." The 6-foot "rule" was only a recommendation, not a law. You were entirely free to ignore that recommendation. Not sure where the police are coming in to this?
  - lurking15 2y ago
    Police power is different than “the police.” 6-foot distance was not just a recommendation it became this bizarre ritual divorced from reality with no actual scientific rational.
    - craftkiller 2y ago
      > 6-foot distance was not just a recommendation Yes it was: > The guidelines are not mandatory source: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cdc-school-reopening-guidance/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cdc-school-reopening-guida...
      - lurking15 2y ago
        do you always selectively quote a response and misunderstand what a person is saying?
Jimmc414 2y ago
> base our decisions on scientific data previously collected That is exactly what is being asked. What previously collected scientific data?
mike_hearn 2y ago
> "science" doesn't require having a peer-reviewed ten-year old study that has been published in Nature and survived challenges. It does. That sort of requirement is why people respect science and wanted to rely on it in the first place. What you're arguing here is not that Fauci was doing science, as he clearly wasn't - pulling ideas out of thin air isn't science. What you seem to be arguing here is that science wasn't of any use for making decisions because the process is too slow. That might well be correct. But in that case there was no basis for governments to do anything at all, as the question wasn't in the political realm either (nobody had campaigned on it in an election for example). Which means they should have just left individual citizens to their own devices. You probably won't like that conclusion, but the alternative is to destroy the meaning of the word science. If it isn't a deliberative process in which you do what's needed to establish reliable world models then it's nothing at all, and there's no reason anyone should care what "scientists" say as they are little more than witchdoctors.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  No, it's not as binary as you're making it. You can have a science-based estimate. Even though you don't have a rigorous, peer-reviewed study to prove it, it's still based on as much science as you can get your hands on. But it's still an estimate, and saying "trust the science" as if the science was settled is going too far the other direction. I don't have a problem with people doing the best they could with what they knew. I object, on one hand, to the claim of certainty, and on the other hand, to the rejection of best estimates as being purely unscientific.
  - mike_hearn 2y ago
    Nobody disagrees with any of that. The reason we reject their best estimates is because they weren't scientific. At all. In any way. Not even a little bit. We've all read the transcript but to repeat it: Majority Counsel: “Do you recall when discussions regarding, kind of, the at least a 6 foot threshold began?” Dr. Fauci: “You know, I don’t recall. It sort of just appeared. I don’t recall, like, a discussion of whether it should be 5 or 6 or whatever. It was just that 6 foot is—” Majority Counsel: “Did you see any studies that supported 6 feet?” Dr. Fauci: “I was not aware of studies that in fact, that would be a very difficult study to do.” It's not obvious how this could be any clearer. He states unambiguously that it wasn't a best estimate based on science, whether contemporary or pre-existing. Science doesn't even get a look in here. He didn't even know where the number came from. It became global policy but nobody can figure out why or how. He even seems to reject the idea that the question can be answered scientifically at all.

by veidr 2y ago

insickness 2y ago

This is a slippery slope. These policies had a vast affect on the lives of millions of people. Business were shut down. Schools were closed. People were instructed to stay in their homes for years. Simply saying, "Well, we made our best guess," is absolutely not acceptable. When the government curbs human rights, they have an obligation to weigh and justify the costs with scientific evidence.

blackbear_ 2y ago
What is your suggested approach when there is no (reliable) scientific evidence for any course of action and not enough time to gather such (reliable) evidence? Note that not taking any action is also a decision that, in your framework, requires supporting evidence.
- mike_hearn 2y ago
  Not taking action doesn't require supporting evidence, and insickness didn't propose a framework in which it does. There is at any moment an infinite number of things you could choose to not be doing. You can't collect evidence for not doing those things, as the amount of evidence required would also be infinite.
  - blackbear_ 2y ago
    Not taking any action is also a decision, and it has to be justified like anything else that will affect the health and lives of millions of people. You don't need to collect evidence for everything you choose not to be doing, all you need is evidence that the status quo is not worse than any other (known) alternative. In any case, my point was that you can't make decisions based on evidence when you are faced with a new situation for which there is no (reliable) evidence. In these cases some other approach is needed.

lurking15 2y ago

You're saying that random bureaucrats deserve unmitigated police power. That's authoritarian and despotic. In fact, average people have the ability and humility to do basic ground-level checks that authorities and academics almost never do - a simple ability to step back and say "does any of this even make sense in the context of my own life and what I'm observing?" All of this "advanced" knowledge of supposed-experts often clouds their judgment and just equips them with sophisticated reasoning ability to give themselves undeserved confidence in their own self-deception, grave errors and misunderstandings.

craftkiller 2y ago
Thats quite a leap. You're going from: "The best science we have available during this medical emergency suggests that increasing distance reduces transmission for similar diseases, so we are going to recommend people maintain a 6-foot distance." to "unmitigated police power [...] authoritarian and despotic." The 6-foot "rule" was only a recommendation, not a law. You were entirely free to ignore that recommendation. Not sure where the police are coming in to this?
- lurking15 2y ago
  Police power is different than “the police.” 6-foot distance was not just a recommendation it became this bizarre ritual divorced from reality with no actual scientific rational.
  - craftkiller 2y ago
    > 6-foot distance was not just a recommendation Yes it was: > The guidelines are not mandatory source: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cdc-school-reopening-guidance/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cdc-school-reopening-guida...
    - lurking15 2y ago
      do you always selectively quote a response and misunderstand what a person is saying?

Jimmc414 2y ago

> base our decisions on scientific data previously collected That is exactly what is being asked. What previously collected scientific data?

mike_hearn 2y ago

> "science" doesn't require having a peer-reviewed ten-year old study that has been published in Nature and survived challenges. It does. That sort of requirement is why people respect science and wanted to rely on it in the first place. What you're arguing here is not that Fauci was doing science, as he clearly wasn't - pulling ideas out of thin air isn't science. What you seem to be arguing here is that science wasn't of any use for making decisions because the process is too slow. That might well be correct. But in that case there was no basis for governments to do anything at all, as the question wasn't in the political realm either (nobody had campaigned on it in an election for example). Which means they should have just left individual citizens to their own devices. You probably won't like that conclusion, but the alternative is to destroy the meaning of the word science. If it isn't a deliberative process in which you do what's needed to establish reliable world models then it's nothing at all, and there's no reason anyone should care what "scientists" say as they are little more than witchdoctors.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
No, it's not as binary as you're making it. You can have a science-based estimate. Even though you don't have a rigorous, peer-reviewed study to prove it, it's still based on as much science as you can get your hands on. But it's still an estimate, and saying "trust the science" as if the science was settled is going too far the other direction. I don't have a problem with people doing the best they could with what they knew. I object, on one hand, to the claim of certainty, and on the other hand, to the rejection of best estimates as being purely unscientific.
- mike_hearn 2y ago
  Nobody disagrees with any of that. The reason we reject their best estimates is because they weren't scientific. At all. In any way. Not even a little bit. We've all read the transcript but to repeat it: Majority Counsel: “Do you recall when discussions regarding, kind of, the at least a 6 foot threshold began?” Dr. Fauci: “You know, I don’t recall. It sort of just appeared. I don’t recall, like, a discussion of whether it should be 5 or 6 or whatever. It was just that 6 foot is—” Majority Counsel: “Did you see any studies that supported 6 feet?” Dr. Fauci: “I was not aware of studies that in fact, that would be a very difficult study to do.” It's not obvious how this could be any clearer. He states unambiguously that it wasn't a best estimate based on science, whether contemporary or pre-existing. Science doesn't even get a look in here. He didn't even know where the number came from. It became global policy but nobody can figure out why or how. He even seems to reject the idea that the question can be answered scientifically at all.