volkris @volkris@qoto.org
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
@seachanger well right, because it's not a particularly substantial element of the story.
In peace time (should that ever exist) folks can sit around in faculty lounges trading ideas about abstractions like power imbalances, but those theoretical exchanges really take a back seat when there are real and substantial issues to address.
When a person needs food we need to talk about getting them food.
It's something of a distraction to stop and discuss a theoretical model of interpersonal engagement that they may fit into when they're salivating at the sight of a desperately needed loaf of bread.
I mean, I did.
Your perspective is just so detached from reality that it leads to nonsense.
But that's social media for you.
@jumbanho well right.
I don't know what your point is at this point.
You asked for a study looking at indirect measures of causality, which this study did, and then you asked for one that was even less direct, for some reason, and now you're describing how RCTs are indirect, which sounds to me like proving that the study did what you're asking for...
It just sounds more and more like you really just want a study to confirm your biases.
Firstly, you have your facts wrong. So many things aren't launched into space because it's cool, but because that's where you have to go to execute certain goals.
NASA doesn't spend a ton of money to launch a space probe because it's cool, but because a space probe needs to be in... space.
But secondly, people need cool things in their lives! EVEN IF we were launching rockets just because it's cool, that in itself isn't a disqualifier.
I wonder if we could shut down something you personally think is really cool to save the resources and costs it involves.
But no, cool things are cool. That is a benefit not to be overlooked.
@fredbrooker@witter.cz
@jumbanho well a RCT isn't necessarily a direct measure of causality. Just because you change this and see that result doesn't mean this change caused that result.
But I'm also not sure why you're so interested in bringing in less direct indicators, as if being farther from the situation necessarily improves the observation.
@lazyb0y yeah, that's the sort of picture special interest groups like to paint, but it's not really how CEOs work given the legal environment they operate in.
It makes for a good narrative that plays on peoples' emotions, but it's basically just manipulation.
Ask yourself, do you think a corporation WANTs to lose money? Probably not, right? So why would a corporation throw money at a CEO if they don't have to?
They'd lose money and give up profits if they did. So it's not a realistic story.
@jumbanho exactly: as per the SciAm article, the Cochrane study did "assemble the results from many studies that come at causation less directly".
And the conclusion was that doing so was "quantitatively unable to conclude anything about the effectiveness of mask mandates"
@SonofaGeorge this IS division of powers.
The president is to nominate but senators hold the power to approve if the nominee is compelling.
volkris
boosted
@psu_13 I gave up on Adguard because "Adguard *For Safari*" contains an entire copy of Chrome inside it, for compatibility with the latest WebP exploits. https://mastodon.social/@jwz/111132818664259012
I wouldn't describe not wanting to waste money as a fad.
Do YOU want to spend money unnecessarily? Do you want to pay twice as much for whatever you might buy today?
No, that's just as natural and part of humanity as any other expression of wanting more stuff.
@trevorflowers
But that's how the Constitution set up the process, intentionally.
The president is required to nominate someone that the Senate wants to confirm. This is to make sure the people appointed can make it through the checks and balances, to limit the power of the president.
That the Senate didn't move on Obama's nominee is not only n not unconstitutional, it's exactly how the Constitution set up checks and balances.
Obama refused to nominate someone the Senate would approve. That was his failure.
@AmenZwa what in the world are you talking about?
@jumbanho but according to the SciAm article, Cochrane says the Kansas study isn't great and doesn't stand up to standards of rigor.
So now we have, reportedly, your argument against the Cochrane researchers about whether that study is worthwhile.
Why should we believe you over the professionals? There's a hurdle to be overcome there.
@junesim63 sure, it's a great option... that's not actually on the table.
No, it's not a difficult concept to grasp that world peace would be nice. It's just that there is no way to actually have world peace.
@AlexSanterne Well right. Exactly. And here we are talking about the second not the first.
People want things, so we should not be attempting to judge what they want through an objective lens like physics.
@fredbrooker@witter.cz
@FinchHaven yeah, you're missing that that's exactly what's being addressed.
The protocol in the specification has scalability issues outside of any implementation.
All of the implementations have to deal with those specified scalability issues.
But it IS hard. Because reality is complicated even if simple models are simple.
In particular, often health studies involve the messiness of human behavior, for example the differences in ways people act in response to the treatment in question.
Humans aren't aerosols. They're even more complicated than those chaotic elements.
@laurahelmuth
@ColinOatley but it doesn't sound like it mislead the public here.
It sounds like it did fine work, but some figured in the public misinterpreted what it said.
The outfit can hardly be blamed for the strawmen others set up to argue.
@laurahelmuth
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
volkris's choices:
