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.
“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
An epistemic epidemic. I think certainty kills more than uncertainty. If you’re unsure, you err on the side of caution (because it’s life-threatening), however, if a person is certain there is no threat when there actually is, that kills.
“Certainty kills more than uncertainty. If you’re unsure, you err on the side of caution.”
I’m not sure it works that way. Lots of counterexamples.
Before Ignaz Semmelweis, caution might well make doctors avoid the novel and highly dubious practice of hand-washing. The uncertainty and risks associated with sudden political changes could make a cautious individual oppose (or at least retire support for) the French Revolution or the American War of Independence. If the most cautious of pundits had had it their way, we would still not have “horseless carriages” or flying vehicles (those do kill many people, but they also take people to hospitals, evacuate refugees, airlift medicines and food, and simply make prosperous, modern life possible).
It’s easy to see where “caution” lies with the benefit of hindsight; not so much when things are still being debated.
@tripu
I was thinking about the current pandemic when I made my comment.
Sometimes the cautious thing to do is change. If some new evidence comes up that indicates a chance that a change in behavior would be much safer, as with hand washing, and there is little cost or risk with the new behavior, then it may be better to adopt the new behavior while continuing to investigate.
This is what some are doing in response to the omicron variant.
@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.