tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post3971057086087088385..comments2024-03-27T03:19:11.216-04:00Comments on Assistant Village Idiot: Skeptical About SkepticsAssistant Village Idiothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01978011985085795099noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-18078297368233890132022-02-09T14:39:13.231-05:002022-02-09T14:39:13.231-05:00Thank you again.Thank you again.Assistant Village Idiothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01978011985085795099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-71870238011797118202022-02-09T14:21:25.721-05:002022-02-09T14:21:25.721-05:00@AVI
We certainly could be having a few cold/flu/e...@AVI<br />We certainly could be having a few cold/flu/etc cases slipping through diagnosed as Covid. But at least in my experience in the hospital, not many. A few months back we had several cases of RSV in older adults. Normally a little kid virus, it was quite harsh in these adults. But, while superficially the symptoms were very similar, we pretty quickly figured out that something else was going on and did a 'respiratory panel' which nailed down the diagnosis.<br /><br />The lab values are different. Covid is pretty unique and not hard to pin down even without a positive test. At home, I doubt could differentiate a mild covid case from any of several dozen possible diseases. I had a mild 'cold' last week and after a few days used an at-home covid test. Positive. So I am isolating until Thursday when I should go back to work.Tom Bridgelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13098048586042365606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-89307675912023116532022-02-04T18:08:55.712-05:002022-02-04T18:08:55.712-05:00I will let others weigh in on their value for indi...I will let others weigh in on their value for individual diagnosis. But what I have most often heard this objection used for is to suggest that our overall count of covid death is way too high, as the test does not fully differentiate among covid, colds, and flu, so therefore it might not be covid. But we haven't had a million people die of colds, not even 0.1% of that, and if these were really flu (Mike Kennedy over at Chicago Boyz used to claim that when I still read his comments), then we have had two flu seasons that are 20x average back-to-back, with no explanation. I don't need an expert to tell me that's just not true. I can do big picture stuff, if nothing else.<br /><br />Small chinks in the narrative seldom bother me, unless it can be shown that they actually point to bigger problems, rather than just show "Well, there could be problems, right? Right?"Assistant Village Idiothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01978011985085795099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-45651542184267707232022-02-04T17:34:21.555-05:002022-02-04T17:34:21.555-05:00One of the weak links that first made me skeptical...One of the weak links that first made me skeptical was the PCR tests. The evidence seemed very convincing that these tests were not intended to diagnose infection, and could easily produce false positives, especially if the number of cycles used was higher. As far as I can tell these concerns were never addressed and the same test continues to be the "gold standard"stevohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12393254273631852865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-34987952150025964732022-02-04T11:29:35.837-05:002022-02-04T11:29:35.837-05:00Grim: I think this is often the wisest position in...<b>Grim</b>: <i>I think this is often the wisest position in cases in which experts disagree, given that science is always open to revision and in fact is always revising. </i><br /><br />While experts may disagree, especially at the margins, they often agree on other fundamentals. In other words, just because there may be expert disagreement about the exact shape of the Earth, experts may nonetheless agree that the Earth more resembles a sphere than a flat surface. Not all views are equivalent just because there is scientific debate. <br /><br /><b>Grim</b>: <i>In the case of Climate Change, for example, there is a large scientific consensus about it; but we who are not experts notice there is also a massive amount of power and money behind that consensus, such that careers are easily made and funding easily acquired in one direction and not the other. </i><br /><br />Ad hominem is not always a fallacy when addressing an appeal to authority. However, we would point out that the consensus on climate includes scientists from many different countries, under various political systems, and in dissimilar cultures. More important, the consensus spans entirely different disciplines using independent methodologies. <br /><br />How do we know something is a valid scientific authority? One of the most important measures is that a valid field of study overlaps with other fields. So evolutionary science overlaps with zoology and ecology and geology and molecular biology and so on. And each of these fields also overlaps other fields. This overlap gives a strong foundation to the entire scientific edifice. There will inevitably be tension between and within the different fields, and this tension can lead to new scientific insights or even new fields of study. <br /><br />More generally, an appeal to authority is a type of inductive argument {eta: based on the experience that experts are more likely to be correct than non-experts in a field, though not infallibly so} and is evaluated as follows:<br /><br />• The cited authority has sufficient expertise.<br />• The authority is making a statement within their area of expertise.<br />• The area of expertise is a valid field of study.<br />• There is adequate agreement among authorities in the field, and the authority is expressing this agreement.<br />• There is no evidence of undue bias}.<br /><br />The proper argument against a valid appeal to authority is to the evidence.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-82952699712041646482022-02-04T10:38:16.419-05:002022-02-04T10:38:16.419-05:00Assistant Village Idiot: Skeptical About Skeptics ...<b>Assistant Village Idiot</b>: <i>Skeptical About Skeptics </i><br /><br />It's important to distinguish between healthy skepticism and unsound denialism.<br /><br />"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.'" — Stephen J. GouldZachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-56415617918154768552022-02-04T07:01:26.107-05:002022-02-04T07:01:26.107-05:00Mere wrongness, especially if it was easily avoida...Mere wrongness, especially if it was easily avoidable, bothers me more than hypocrisy. Wrongness in a hard choice, not so much. I have known lots of competent pricks. Being wrong for personality reasons does bother me a lot.Assistant Village Idiothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01978011985085795099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-5639649996692185222022-02-04T06:04:12.504-05:002022-02-04T06:04:12.504-05:00You do seem to have a much higher tolerance for pe...You do seem to have a much higher tolerance for people in authority acting like jerks. The risk of false positives is admittedly high but when the actions of the people giving orders are not in line with the orders being given most people's BS detectors go to the peg, and past it when lame excuses like "I was holding my breath" are offered.Christopher Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00396671757183163171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-11035959399431683632022-02-03T21:20:23.251-05:002022-02-03T21:20:23.251-05:00I would tend to say that 99% might even be an unde...I would tend to say that 99% might even be an underestimate, depending on what you define as 'skepticism.' In large political matters, almost everyone has an opinion; almost none of them are experts in the field. <br /><br />Yet there is an alternative to accepting a skeptical authority if you are inclined to reject the authoritative authority. This is to hold the question open, and to take reasonable steps to hedge bets. I think this is often the wisest position in cases in which experts disagree, given that science is always open to revision and in fact is always revising. <br /><br />In the case of Climate Change, for example, there is a large scientific consensus about it; but we who are not experts notice there is also a massive amount of power and money behind that consensus, such that careers are easily made and funding easily acquired in one direction and not the other. <br /><br />(That by itself is reason for skepticism, even if there were zero experts raising skeptical considerations -- and one that requires no special expertise.)<br /><br />There are also a few skeptics, far fewer among the experts in the field, raising what appear to be reasonably serious questions. <br /><br />As a voter and a citizen, or as a father and a homeowner, you could choose to cast your lot with one group or the other. Of course, being inexpert yourself, the choice is just as blind whether you go the one way or the other way. It's a gamble.<br /><br />Alternatively you could do what we usually do with risks, which is try to hedge them. Perhaps you might decide to buy that beach vacation home, even though it could be underwater in... 5 years? 50 years? But you could also buy a flooding insurance policy. Or perhaps you could choose to adopt 'green' lifestyle choices where they make sense and are economical, rather than bending your entire life in the one direction or totally refusing and buying one of those 'rolling coal' trucks to trumpet your disdain for the consideration.<br /><br />(Do you know about rolling coal? It's a highly dubious practice even from a mechanical perspective as it can damage your engine, but it's popular in some areas -- I don't know if yours is one of them. I never see real country boys do it, but suburban cowboys seem to think it's cool.)<br /><br />https://insideevs.com/news/366799/ram-coal-roll-tesla-video/<br /><br />Since no one is an expert on every question, we all have to do this kind of calculation all the time in various areas. And if we are to remain a free and self-governing people, it is necessary to entrust decision-making on even very important questions to non-experts -- because almost all of us are not experts on the particular question, but our equality lies practically in that our votes are equal in weight. If we change that, and make 'some more equal than others' (even only on some questions) we lose that equality and with it the capacity to govern ourselves as a people rather than accepting being governed by others 'for our own good.' <br /><br />(What constitutes a "good" to be pursued is a question in which philosophers are especially expert, so you might think I was arguing against interests here; like Plato, I could set myself and my class atop the heap by trying to reserve questions to experts, and then pointing out that we happen to be the experts on the very highest and most central question of all. You have heard many of my arguments against taking that position, however.)<br /><br />So: do question authority; don't necessarily accept anyone else's authority in lieu of it, either. Hedge your bets as seems prudent and hold questions open, perhaps even forever. Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-56033470592092111252022-02-03T20:48:10.349-05:002022-02-03T20:48:10.349-05:00I wasn't trying to measure skepticism of the C...I wasn't trying to measure skepticism of the CDC et al, but the Floyd protest endorsements did cause quite a stir, and I think Razib and Gunn are right that there was a lot of trust irrevocably lost then.<br /><br />There's a bit of variation in types of skepticism. <br /><br />Flat disbelief is one thing, suspecting that there's more to the story is another. <br /><br />If the experts take the time to show their work, does that make a difference? (Given how easy it is to lie with statistics, maybe that shouldn't make a difference for people without some background in statistics or experiment design.) <br /><br />Can you accept a claim provisionally, and be able to discard it easily if it's disproved? (First report out of the gate tends to stick in the mind better--mine too.)jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01792036361407527304noreply@blogger.com