6 ms·

Last time there was a campaign against fluoridation in my town it was extremely innumerate and resorted to emotional appeals like "do you want chemicals in your

Last time there was a campaign against fluoridation in my town it was extremely innumerate and resorted to emotional appeals like "do you want chemicals in your water"? That has coloured, perhaps unfairly, my perception of the issue ever since.

rozap 2y ago
This sort of reactionary perception against dumb people yelling about stuff is just as emotionally driven as the yelling itself. Just because someone makes a bad argument, doesn't mean the inverse position is true by default, it just means they made a bad argument. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while :) I don't know if fluoride in the water is bad. But you cannot let yourself be driven to a position because the wrong type of people are taking the other position. That type of decision making is devoid of all logic, even though you got there by reacting against a position that was devoid of all logic. You need to get to a position by tuning the emotion out.
- Retric 2y ago
  The number of untrue things vastly outweighs the number of true things. So the public can ignore ideas championed solely by idiots. Not because idiots are necessarily wrong, but simply because looking at random noise isn’t productive use of time. A similar argument counters Pascal’s wager. There’s hypothetically infinite potential ways to end up in eternal suffering and for any ways to avoid it there’s the possibility that doing to opposite is in fact required. Thus the potential downside alone isn’t enough to compel action without some other reason to suspect a particular belief system is correct.
  - reducesuffering 2y ago
    > So the public can ignore ideas championed solely by idiots Is that the case here? Solely? Most of the world doesn't fluoridate their water.
    - Retric 2y ago
      Water naturally contains fluoride in much of the world. So you need to look at the actual levels in drinking water not just assuming a location not adding it doesn’t approve of it. Cost is also a real concern for much of the world.
    - stouset 2y ago
      Most of the world not fluoridating their water isn’t inherently a scientific position as much as it is a political one.
      - outworlder 2y ago
        Also an economic one. Although the 'developing' country I was born at does fluoridate its water supply.
      - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
        Most of the world doesn't have potable water at all from their water systems, so what would be the point of adding flouride to that water if you are not even supposed to use it to brush your teeth.
      - reducesuffering 2y ago
        Sure, but I take issue with "ignore ideas championed solely by idiots" as if this issue is just the fringe lunatics as opposed to 90% of the world. Multiple people are bringing up the economics / cost when countries like Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, Czechia, Italy, Switzerland, Japan, and Portugal don't fluoridate. You'd think if there was such a clear benefit / risk profile it would be unanimous. I can't take seriously arguments that it's such a big win with no risk when these very developed countries have decided against it. Sure, that's not scientific (I haven't deep dived into the science), but it is a useful heuristic against bad science. For 50 years, the science in the US was no evidence many industrial chemicals added to food were harmful, even though they were banned in most of the EU and Japan. Lo and behold, CA finally bans them: https://www.reedsmith.com/en/perspectives/2023/10/new-california-law-bans-four-common-chemicals-in-food https://www.reedsmith.com/en/perspectives/2023/10/new-califo... Oh wow, FDA just banned Brominated Vegetable Oil 2 months ago... (banned in UK / EU since 1970)
  - aisifnfickd 2y ago
    It’s pretty well established that larger entities (governments especially) will push loads of bogus theories out there to drown out the few credible ones. Idiots will be drawn to both. Your line of thinking is the exact reason they use that strategy. Again like the parent said, you have to evaluate each issue on its own merits.
    - Retric 2y ago
      > have to evaluate Evaluation isn’t free, where I can remain undecided at effectively zero cost. I am not in the market for a new GPU therefore I don’t need to have an opinion on what’s good value for money.
  - rozap 2y ago
    Maybe I wasn't super clear in my post, but this is my point, and I agree, tune out the noise. Actually reacting against the noise is bad, because at that point noise is causing a change in behavior. The only reasonable thing to do is to tune it out.
- stouset 2y ago
  > Just because someone makes a bad argument, doesn't mean the inverse position is true by default No, but when the opposing side only ever seems to provide (and appears to entirely rely on) innumerate, scientifically illiterate, illogical, or otherwise bad arguments, at some point you have to stop listening.
  - rozap 2y ago
    Exactly, you should absolutely stop listening. But taking a strong inverse position also doesn't make sense.
    - stouset 2y ago
      GP never said that, though. > That has coloured, perhaps unfairly, my perception of the issue ever since.
Spooky23 2y ago
The brigade of anti-fluoridation people have pivoted to a civil rights defense that its medication without consent. There’s also a movement to fight iodizing salt.
- meepmorp 2y ago
  > There’s also a movement to fight iodizing salt. Somehow a pro-cretinism movement seems appropriate for our moment in time.
S04dKHzrKT 2y ago
> "do you want chemicals in your water"? This argument, in any context, always reminds me of the fluoride episode of Parks and Rec. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c0JrJdJrBA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c0JrJdJrBA
VoodooJuJu 2y ago
>"do you want chemicals in your water" I know you're deriding this as an invalid, small-brain appeal, but this is actually sound. It's like that meme with the bell curve of the layperson, the midwit, and the genius. The layperson and the genius know that adding these chemicals to the water isn't worth the risk, they'll just articulate it in different ways. They might argue that adding "chemicals in your water" is not Lindy, that there's higher order unknown unknowns and risks that the layperson and the genius would rather not take. That the upsides simply aren't worth it versus the downsides. Contrast that with the midwit who will appeal to bureaucrat-scholar "experts" and their myopic scientific studies. In this way, the sacraments of Scientism make it easy to fool the midwit, especially when midwit media apparatuses will dismiss the opposition per ad hominem as an inferior "Them" to the midwit's superior "Us". But try convincing a midwit of that without a peer-review study!
- outworlder 2y ago
  [flagged]
- yongjik 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - rootusrootus 2y ago
    Is it really fair to compare a chemical that maintains water free of pathogens to a chemical intended to bring about a change in the body of the consumer? I'd guess the genius and the layperson can both understand the value of chlorine in drinking water.
    - BenjiWiebe 2y ago
      [flagged]
- InsideOutSanta 2y ago
  If, in your analogy, "the genius" isn't also "the scientist", because the scientist who studies this topic is just praying to scientism instead of doing any research, then who, exactly, is your genius, and how do you know that they are, in fact, a genius?
toast0 2y ago
A numerate argument is really easy to make. It costs money to provide fluoridation. Most municipal water is not consumed by people, and your grass, toliets, and showers don't need it; adult humans don't really either, it makes a more significant difference during the growth of teeth. The monetary benefit of fluoridating the public doesn't seem very big, but is fairly poorly measured. Eliminating the fluoridation budget or redirecting it towards direct dental health initiatives could be a better use of public funds. Maybe the opex isn't enough to care, but when the capital equipment for fluoridation reaches its end of life, maybe don't spend the capex to replace it.

rozap 2y ago

This sort of reactionary perception against dumb people yelling about stuff is just as emotionally driven as the yelling itself. Just because someone makes a bad argument, doesn't mean the inverse position is true by default, it just means they made a bad argument. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while :) I don't know if fluoride in the water is bad. But you cannot let yourself be driven to a position because the wrong type of people are taking the other position. That type of decision making is devoid of all logic, even though you got there by reacting against a position that was devoid of all logic. You need to get to a position by tuning the emotion out.

Retric 2y ago
The number of untrue things vastly outweighs the number of true things. So the public can ignore ideas championed solely by idiots. Not because idiots are necessarily wrong, but simply because looking at random noise isn’t productive use of time. A similar argument counters Pascal’s wager. There’s hypothetically infinite potential ways to end up in eternal suffering and for any ways to avoid it there’s the possibility that doing to opposite is in fact required. Thus the potential downside alone isn’t enough to compel action without some other reason to suspect a particular belief system is correct.
- reducesuffering 2y ago
  > So the public can ignore ideas championed solely by idiots Is that the case here? Solely? Most of the world doesn't fluoridate their water.
  - Retric 2y ago
    Water naturally contains fluoride in much of the world. So you need to look at the actual levels in drinking water not just assuming a location not adding it doesn’t approve of it. Cost is also a real concern for much of the world.
  - stouset 2y ago
    Most of the world not fluoridating their water isn’t inherently a scientific position as much as it is a political one.
    - outworlder 2y ago
      Also an economic one. Although the 'developing' country I was born at does fluoridate its water supply.
    - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
      Most of the world doesn't have potable water at all from their water systems, so what would be the point of adding flouride to that water if you are not even supposed to use it to brush your teeth.
    - reducesuffering 2y ago
      Sure, but I take issue with "ignore ideas championed solely by idiots" as if this issue is just the fringe lunatics as opposed to 90% of the world. Multiple people are bringing up the economics / cost when countries like Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, Czechia, Italy, Switzerland, Japan, and Portugal don't fluoridate. You'd think if there was such a clear benefit / risk profile it would be unanimous. I can't take seriously arguments that it's such a big win with no risk when these very developed countries have decided against it. Sure, that's not scientific (I haven't deep dived into the science), but it is a useful heuristic against bad science. For 50 years, the science in the US was no evidence many industrial chemicals added to food were harmful, even though they were banned in most of the EU and Japan. Lo and behold, CA finally bans them: https://www.reedsmith.com/en/perspectives/2023/10/new-california-law-bans-four-common-chemicals-in-food https://www.reedsmith.com/en/perspectives/2023/10/new-califo... Oh wow, FDA just banned Brominated Vegetable Oil 2 months ago... (banned in UK / EU since 1970)
- aisifnfickd 2y ago
  It’s pretty well established that larger entities (governments especially) will push loads of bogus theories out there to drown out the few credible ones. Idiots will be drawn to both. Your line of thinking is the exact reason they use that strategy. Again like the parent said, you have to evaluate each issue on its own merits.
  - Retric 2y ago
    > have to evaluate Evaluation isn’t free, where I can remain undecided at effectively zero cost. I am not in the market for a new GPU therefore I don’t need to have an opinion on what’s good value for money.
- rozap 2y ago
  Maybe I wasn't super clear in my post, but this is my point, and I agree, tune out the noise. Actually reacting against the noise is bad, because at that point noise is causing a change in behavior. The only reasonable thing to do is to tune it out.
stouset 2y ago
> Just because someone makes a bad argument, doesn't mean the inverse position is true by default No, but when the opposing side only ever seems to provide (and appears to entirely rely on) innumerate, scientifically illiterate, illogical, or otherwise bad arguments, at some point you have to stop listening.
- rozap 2y ago
  Exactly, you should absolutely stop listening. But taking a strong inverse position also doesn't make sense.
  - stouset 2y ago
    GP never said that, though. > That has coloured, perhaps unfairly, my perception of the issue ever since.

Spooky23 2y ago

The brigade of anti-fluoridation people have pivoted to a civil rights defense that its medication without consent. There’s also a movement to fight iodizing salt.

meepmorp 2y ago
> There’s also a movement to fight iodizing salt. Somehow a pro-cretinism movement seems appropriate for our moment in time.

S04dKHzrKT 2y ago

> "do you want chemicals in your water"? This argument, in any context, always reminds me of the fluoride episode of Parks and Rec. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c0JrJdJrBA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c0JrJdJrBA

VoodooJuJu 2y ago

>"do you want chemicals in your water" I know you're deriding this as an invalid, small-brain appeal, but this is actually sound. It's like that meme with the bell curve of the layperson, the midwit, and the genius. The layperson and the genius know that adding these chemicals to the water isn't worth the risk, they'll just articulate it in different ways. They might argue that adding "chemicals in your water" is not Lindy, that there's higher order unknown unknowns and risks that the layperson and the genius would rather not take. That the upsides simply aren't worth it versus the downsides. Contrast that with the midwit who will appeal to bureaucrat-scholar "experts" and their myopic scientific studies. In this way, the sacraments of Scientism make it easy to fool the midwit, especially when midwit media apparatuses will dismiss the opposition per ad hominem as an inferior "Them" to the midwit's superior "Us". But try convincing a midwit of that without a peer-review study!

outworlder 2y ago
[flagged]
yongjik 2y ago
[flagged]
- rootusrootus 2y ago
  Is it really fair to compare a chemical that maintains water free of pathogens to a chemical intended to bring about a change in the body of the consumer? I'd guess the genius and the layperson can both understand the value of chlorine in drinking water.
  - BenjiWiebe 2y ago
    [flagged]
InsideOutSanta 2y ago
If, in your analogy, "the genius" isn't also "the scientist", because the scientist who studies this topic is just praying to scientism instead of doing any research, then who, exactly, is your genius, and how do you know that they are, in fact, a genius?

toast0 2y ago

A numerate argument is really easy to make. It costs money to provide fluoridation. Most municipal water is not consumed by people, and your grass, toliets, and showers don't need it; adult humans don't really either, it makes a more significant difference during the growth of teeth. The monetary benefit of fluoridating the public doesn't seem very big, but is fairly poorly measured. Eliminating the fluoridation budget or redirecting it towards direct dental health initiatives could be a better use of public funds. Maybe the opex isn't enough to care, but when the capital equipment for fluoridation reaches its end of life, maybe don't spend the capex to replace it.