Fartrick's will, I predict, acknowledge all that, but object that that says nothing about the ethics of forcing people to be vaccinated. I'm with you, though, because I don't think it is really a significant ethical question if it is true that vaccination is extremely unlikely to do people any harm. Also mandates in most countries are likely to be provisional, " If you want to do X, then you must be vaccinated".

@Bartricks Imo, the underlying fault lies in having no correct understanding of either freedom or duty - or the relation between the two. Too many adults think of freedom as their ability to do whatever they want to do, and if they cannot then by that much not free; and that freedom, so conceived, being their warrant for claiming as a right whatever they want to do. All of which is just a layer-cake of stupid. And of course being children under the spell of the idea of freedom as they conceive of it, suppose themselves heroic for defending it, never realizing they're dangerous and stupid fools hurting, harming, and damaging what they want to protect.

Covid deaths: 1800 a day, two day average over 3,000. That’s a 9/11 every two days. Idaho and Texas hospitals pushed to the max, and now southern hospitals:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/09/14/us/covid-hospital-icu-south.html

“One in four hospitals now reports more than 95 percent of I.C.U. beds occupied — up from one in five last month. Experts say it can become difficult to maintain standards of care for the sickest patients in hospitals where all or nearly all I.C.U. beds are occupied.“

But who cares? Better than getting a MEDICAL PROCEDURE.

And of course being children under the spell of the idea of freedom as they conceive of it, suppose themselves heroic for defending it, never realizing they're dangerous and stupid fools hurting, harming, and damaging what they want to protect. — tim wood

I agree, except for the part about being stupid fools. They’re well-meaning people, mostly, who’ve been mislead. This is at education is important, and why regulating social media is important. No standards whatsoever, and an algorithm essentially designed to promote falsehoods— because they get more clicks.

They can’t see that the very fact that they’re “questioning” things so rigorously here and not elsewhere is the real issue. It’s not only because it’s a “big deal” that effects us all — that’s true too. It’s because of politicization.

Covid deaths: 1800 a day, two day average over 3,000. That’s a 9/11 every two days. Idaho and Texas hospitals pushed to the max, and now southern hospitals: — Xtrix

I asked where you’re getting these figures from. They aren’t found on the Worldometers website. You posted an article about ICU beds that does not contain those figures.

Funny you have you ask me, as if this data wasn’t readily available. Here’s one example (the depths of obscurity, I know):

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/covid-cases.html

I agree, except for the part about being stupid fools. They’re well-meaning people, — Xtrix

I suppose I ought to agree, the sentiment being so, well, well-meant. But I don't. They're fools; they're stupid; they're stupid fools. We may as well call them what they are. That at least has the virtue of accuracy and at least to that degree we will not have misled ourselves - and that itself no small danger.

Who in your opinion does the more, the greater harm, those who mean well but don't know, or those that know and act in accordance with knowledge?

And of course there are many ways to excuse the failures of the well-meaning, but usually that forgiveness is wisely withheld until the rigor of current events has passed, if the events themselves will allow the luxury.

I suppose I ought to agree, the sentiment being so, well, well-meant. But I don't. They're fools; they're stupid; they're stupid fools. — tim wood

I sympathize. But if you instead imagine them as, say, high school students or, better, college students from Liberty University— would you feel the same? I wouldn’t.

I agree they’re doing untold harm, and that their actions are stupid. Their beliefs are also stupid— but who is planting them there?

I blame social media and the likes of Rupert Murdoch much more than any Joe Sixpack.

I asked where you’re getting these figures from. They aren’t found on the Worldometers website. You posted an article about ICU beds that does not contain those figures. — AJJ

Just for the heck of it, while I trust @Xtrix on his citations - on almost everything he posts - suppose he was in error on this. Even if, what's your point? A 9/11 every two days a horror, but every four days, why, that's all right?

As hospitals are overrun in Idaho and Texas and ~3000 die every two days. — Xtrix

So like a sneak you’ve written this is a way that suggests those deaths are occurring in Texas and Idaho, when it’s really across all of the US.

Around 8,000 people die per day in the US of all causes. I’ve already said why this consideration is meaningful.

People who argue well don’t just say things and oblige their opponents to support both cases.

By the way, ad verecundiam/populum isn't quite applicable here. The world (nature, evidence) is the authority here anyway, that's what subject matter experts point at

I decided to respond. Xtrix can ignore this post if he is not interested in my abstract academic philosophizing.

Experts don't always agree, and when they don't, the amount of experts on either side of a position does not tell us who is more likely to be right, because when both sides are experts, the expert status ceases to hold weight when compared to the opposition of an equal expert.

Just as the shared opinion of 99 laymen are not more likely to be right than the opinion of 1 laymen, so the shared opinion of 99 experts is not more likely to be right than 1 expert.

I think that is straight-forward, but I'll go into more detail in an attempt to cement it:
If the expertise level of each laymen is only at a roughly 1-10 percent level, then no matter how many laymen agree something is true, it will not be based on a greater percent level of expertise than 10 max.
It's possible that of the 99 laymen, none in the group exceeds a level of expertise higher than 9, as 9 may be unusually high for a laymen. And it's possible that the one laymen who came to a different conclusion than them, reached a different conclusion because he did significantly extra research to bring his expertise level to 10...and that 1% increase in knowledge made him come to a more informed conclusion. Just 1 percent more knowledge could give a vital piece of knowledge that changes one's conclusion.

So the same sort of thing can be at play with the 99 experts vs the 1 expert. We don't know why that 1 expert reached a different conclusion. It could be that the 1 expert is stupider, has a hidden agenda, or a lower level expertise, or it could be that he is smarter, more sincere, or a higher level expert. Until we know, I don't know what a justification could be for betting on the the majority of experts.

I sympathize. But if you instead imagine them as, say, high school students or, better, college students from Liberty University— would feel the same? I wouldn’t. — Xtrix

You're still young, then, at heart if not by the clock, and, practically living in Grover's Corner, you may - and may you! - remain tender-hearted longer than most. Were I at the front of even a high-school class, one lesson I would strive to teach them is that in this life both halves are theirs. I would ask them who is harmed when they harm themselves, and who is harmed when someone else harms them. And I would ask them to make a list of the people they thought it would be ok to be harmed by. A lesson in that, I think!

So like a sneak you’ve written this is a way that suggests those deaths are occurring in Texas and Idaho, when it’s really across all of the US. — AJJ

So you misread what I wrote and I’m a “sneak” because you haven’t followed the death cases which are posted almost everywhere one gets news. Interestingly. Pathetic is a better word.

Around 8,000 people die per day in the US of all causes. — AJJ

Yes, like I said: keep minimizing. You’re doing great work contributing to new deaths.

the amount of experts on either side of a position does not tell us who is more likely to be right, — Yohan

It does exactly that.

Or we can go with your way of thinking, in which case Creation Science is equally as plausible as Evolution Science, as creationists like to say. 97% consensus in climate change? They’re all just as likely to be wrong or right— no way to tell, since they’re all experts.

If you’re convinced by this kind of thing, you’re welcome.

the amount of experts on either side of a position does not tell us who is more likely to be right, because when both sides are experts, the expert status ceases to hold weight when compared to the opposition of an equal expert.

Just as the shared opinion of 99 laymen are not more likely to be right than the opinion of 1 laymen, so the shared opinion of 99 experts is not more likely to be right than 1 expert. — Yohan

If you're going to abstractly, academically philosophize, then do it, instead of being foolish. @Xtrix makes the case already, but I'll add that you have not troubled to think about what an expert is, how they work, or how they think, as experts.

So you misread what I wrote and I’m a “sneak” because you haven’t followed the death cases which are posted almost everywhere one gets news. — Xtrix

I’m not American, I don’t read that news.

And to be fair, given the whole “affect” and “effect” thing and not understanding what “begging the question” means while insisting others had it wrong, you might just be an egg.

:rofl:

you have not troubled to think about what an expert is, how they work, or how they think, as experts. — tim wood

Yes. It’s still up to us to question and to research, if we’re really interested. But there is usually a reason for doing so and not simply trusting the experts. Mostly this reason is religious (not accepting evolution because it conflicts with beliefs), but also political (climate change). That’s the interesting part: to ask yourself “Why this issue, exactly?”

You're still young, then, at heart if not by the clock, — tim wood

I’m 39. Wouldn’t say I’m a spring chicken, but I take your point.

I’m 39. Wouldn’t say I’m a spring chicken, but I take your point. — Xtrix

First energy, then brains, then wisdom. I'd trade some wisdom for some energy - if only!

the amount of experts on either side of a position does not tell us who is more likely to be right, — Yohan
It does exactly that. — Xtrix

Then explain how. I gave a detailed explanation. Show where I made an error, if you want. I am always open to being proven wrong. I hope I do get proven wrong because then it will mean I have learned something.

I didn't say we have no way of telling what is true if there are experts on both sides of a position. I said if there are more experts on one side, and less but still some on the other side, that that isn't enough information to reach a conclusion about which is more likely to be right.

Probability is more nuanced than that.

Here is quick test for you. If 2 experts believe Y is true, and 1 expert believes Y is false, is it TWICE as likely that the 2 experts are right and the 1 expert is wrong? Please be honest here.

If you're going to abstractly, academically philosophize, then do it, instead of being foolish. Xtrix makes the case already, but I'll add that you have not troubled to think about what an expert is, how they work, or how they think, as experts. — tim wood

I was saying that in a tongue and cheek way. I don't think I am being especially abstract. I don't know what case you are referring to. Xtrix when called out on circular reasoning called what he claimed "essentially a truism."
Anyway, what experts are you referring to? If you are claiming I am not an expert on experts, you are right. Are you? What I do know, is that often experts come to different conclusions, and therefor I cannot always trust someone to give me the right conclusion just on the knowledge that they are experts alone. Thanks.

Anyway, what experts are you referring to? — Yohan

Do you know what an expert is? Or what the designation means? I ask because it appears you do not.

The essence is this. An expert may be presumed, in terms of his or her personal understanding and knowledge, to be at or near the limit of what in his area of expertise can be known or understood. Thus if something can be known or understood, then on that at least experts should agree. And if they don't, it can only be because either one of them is mistaken, or one or both have mistaken the topic and they're not talking about the same thing. Or that which is taken as known and understood is neither, but instead opinion.

Thus, many experts against a few, the many itself is compelling. One against one, and likely the subject needs clarification. Many against many and likely it's neither knowledge nor understanding, but instead competing interpretations of the results of experiments.

With laymen, of course, as you observe, numbers don't mean much, unless a matter of collective experience and wisdom. But even with laymen the judgment favors expertise.

Then explain how. I gave a detailed explanation. Show where I made an error, if you want. I am always open to being proven wrong. I hope I do get proven wrong because then it will mean I have learned something. — Yohan

I’ll give a simple example — very simple, and admittedly limited, so let this be the obligatory qualification:

Scenario 1: We have a complex math equation to solve for. Many people have made minor errors in prior classes, the teacher mentioned. You think you have the problem solved. You hand in your work.

Scenario 2: Same situation, with one difference: you have 3 of your friends check your work for errors. You hand in the work.

Scenario 3: Same as scenario 1, only before handing in your work you find out that 3 of your math friends, working independently, have gotten the same result.

Should we be equally confident in all three scenarios?

I said if there are more experts on one side, and less but still some on the other side, that that isn't enough information to reach a conclusion about which is more likely to be right. — Yohan

It is. If that’s all the information I have, as you say, then going with the greater number of experts is the correct move.

Take the climate change example. Knowing nothing except that 97% of climate scientists agree— is it a better bet to go with them over the 3%? Yes, it is.

There are ways to test this too.

In science, when numerous fields and numerous experts, from around the world, come to the same conclusions and results after weighing evidence and doing experiments independently, the level of certainty is increased.

There are always exceptions we can point to— but science is the best we have. Maybe a psychic or astrologer is right once in a while— does that prove anything?

Here is quick test for you. If 2 experts believe Y is true, and 1 expert believes Y is false, is it TWICE as likely that the 2 experts are right and the 1 expert is wrong? Please be honest here. — Yohan

It’s more likely that the two experts are right. I don’t know about twice as likely — probably not, but compared to what?

Two people are proofreading your paper instead of one. Are two people more likely to find errors? Yeah, of course. In general that’s true. Two people mining for gold are more likely to find something than one person. 100 people mining, even more likely. Etc.

Remember, we’re assuming a level of expertise as well. If two people proofreading your paper are average Joes, and one is an experienced editor, that situation is different.

Do you know what an expert is? Or what the designation means? I ask because it appears you do not. — tim wood

Webster:
Expert 1. One with the special skill or knowledge representing mastery of a particular subject
I find the word representing interesting here. I'm not sure what it means here.
Anyway, I've read about the process of Mastery. From what I understand Mastery is never fully achieved. It is something one passionately dedicated to a topic, field, discipline, sport, whatever constantly strives for, and in the process achieves a comparatively high level of greatness at/in that field. But what I read may be wrong. Perhaps Mastery is possible. But I do suspect it may be somewhat uncommon(which may be the point), and I think everyone has room for improvement, even the experts.

I don't know how good at something one has to be to be justifiably labelled an expert. I tend to think of it, as with many words, in degrees. From 0-100% skill/knowledge. But its not so easy to determine at what percentage of skill you are at, at least in some fields, and again, what percentage of skill is enough to be labelled an Expert/Master. is 80% enough or should it be in the 90% or higher?

The essence is this. An expert may be presumed, in terms of his or her personal understanding and knowledge, to be at or near the limit of what in his area of expertise can be known or understood. — tim wood

1. Sorry if I'm being overly picky, but what exactly do you mean by 'presumed'? And is the presumption a necessary part of the definition, or a necessary aspect to determine an expert?
2. How do we determine what the limit is of what can be known and understood?
3. How do we test if someone has arrived at this limit or near this limit?

Thus if something can be known or understood, then on that at least experts should agree. — tim wood

I don't understand. The experts should agree on what can be known and understood? Until I understand, this, I don't understand how further down you reached the conclusion that a majority of expert agreement is itself compelling. If what I said is what you meant, then I don't see why experts should necessarily agree on what can be known or understood.

Thus if something can be known or understood, then on that at least experts should agree.
— tim wood
I don't understand. — Yohan

I mean that if it is known and understood that 2+2=4, then I would expect those who possess that knowledge and understanding to agree. By presume, I mean that if a person is represented as being an expert on the addition of small integers, then he may be presumed to know and understand that 2+2=4, and to assent to it as a proposition.

You can "distinguish, and divide A hair ’twixt south, and south-west side," but what's the point? After having torn down, you have to build back up again. What is it you have in mind to build?

And don't confuse performance mastery with knowledge. Lang Lang knows how to play the piano, but I'm sure he practices to maintain mastery.

It appears you wish to undercut expertise, but for that you have to undercut the knowledge that its grounded on. You may not like it that 2+2=4. You may not like the person who says it. But your real target is the knowledge itself, & good luck with that!

Though hope is a mug's game, I do hope we run out of anti-vaxxers & Covid-deniers before we run out of vaccines. I like the odds.

Janssen, motherfuckers, about three hours ago.

My left arm feels a bit numb, and I get hot flashes, and some palpitations.

As of tomorrow, Slovenia will have some of the most restrictive measures in the world: the only places one can go without a valid covid passport are basic grocery stores and pharmacies, provided they are not in a shopping mall, but directly accessable from the street. Masks, social distancing, disinfection as usual.

The government is announcing even more restrictions, although I'm not sure what more they can do.

My left arm feels a bit numb, and I get hot flashes, and some palpitations. — baker

You should probably go to the hospital

God no. Hospitals are places one goes to die.

God no. Hospitals are places one goes to die. — baker

That's where they have the cardiac catheterization labs though.

I probably shouldn't take antipiretics for the hot flashes. Unless I still have them tomorrow. I'll see how the night goes.

Besides, one cannot just go to the hospital here, unless it's an urgent matter. First, you need to go to your GP, who then perhaps refers you further. It all makes for a lot of waiting in situations that aren't particularly epidemioloigcally safe.

Well, if you're having a heart attack, that would be urgent.