@tripu perhaps if it seems so "reasonable" it is? How are you gauging whether your belief about covid being a dangerous epidemic (whatever "dangerous" means) is based on available data or some other motive/bias? A simple approach is to track your weekly/monthly level of conviction about various covid-related hypothesis as you read more + gather data and see how your convictions change overtime. Chances are that if they rarely change you're just choosing to belief a skewed biased narrative.
Follow
Sparta, please tell us how your understanding of the threat of COVID-19 has changed throughout the pandemic and what new data drove those changes.
@zpartacoos
> _“Perhaps if it seems so ‘reasonable’ it is?”_
Yes… that's how it should be. But it's not that easy, is it? Thus my “seemingly reasonable”.
It takes time to examine complex arguments, and there are lots and lots of very talented charlatans, deranged PhD's, conspiracy theorists with mountains of creativity and resources at their disposal — and more than anything else, just decent, rational people with biases or mistakes in their reasoning who happen to be inadvertently defending wrong views.
One can find thick books, documentaries, and long blog posts with lots of seemingly robust references promoting any conceivable position on any conceivable topic. A lot of that seems reasonable.
😟
> _“How are you gauging whether your belief about #covid being a dangerous epidemic […] is based on available data or some other motive/bias?”_
I think I'm relying mostly on _authority_ (eg: MD's and biologists over anonymous Reddit users and my cousin; research institutions and international bodies over internet fora and TV pundits) and on _majorities_ (eg: I give more weight to what the majority of experts say than to the fringe doctor associations and isolated denunciators).
What are your tools or recipes to navigate this epistemic storm?
> _“A simple approach is to track your weekly/monthly level of conviction about various covid-related hypothesis as you read more + gather data and see how your convictions change overtime. Chances are that if they rarely change you're just choosing to belief a skewed biased narrative.”_
I'm not sure about that. Is a changing narrative a sign of accuracy or enlightenment? eg, my trust in the overall safety of air travel has not changed significantly over the last two or three decades. Is that because I'm captive to a skewed/biased view, or is it that what I thought about the subject thirty years ago was basically right?
/cc @Pat