2d ago

me_irl

50 comments

I get the whole memeness of it all, but in reality, when you boil it down, no one could ever get all the data and present accurate facts. There are too many variables in life.
The guy who wrote that in the end is no better than who he tries to argue with (for the reason above).
As a species we really need to take a step back. Or else the stupid will win and both sides will die thinking they are right.
- in reality, when you boil it down, no one could ever get all the data and present accurate facts
  If someone says the Earth is round, are we seriously concerned that enough data has not been collected to consider this an accurate fact?
  
  It is, in fact approximately round - it's more precisely an oblate spheroid.
  I'd say go as accurate as is relevant to the current situation.
  
  I debated whether or not to call it an oblate spheroid like a huge nerd or just use the "earth is round" shorthand that most people are familiar with. While not perfectly round, I think most people would agree an oblate spheroid is a round shape in the general sense.
  
  That was actually what I was getting at - there are too many variables in life. Only go as correct as you need to in the moment, and be understanding when others aren't precisely correct either.
  (which I think is what you were getting at, too?)
  
  And? So what? We are talking about things of consequences. Saying the sky is blue and arguing over it that you can’t know that for sure is beyond asinine.
  I’d say if you’re arguing over basic objective, a priori truths, you’ve already lost the plot.
  I was thinking more of actual, real arguments that lead to real consequences. Claiming I can’t ever prove to you that this case in front of me is green because what even is green is just… dumb.
  
  And? So what? We are talking about things of consequences.
  I disagreed with your statement that "no one could ever get all the data and present accurate facts" and sought to use a ubiquitously understood example that is somehow divisive (see: flat-earthers) despite science that's been well understood for hundreds of years making it obviously factual.
  I’d say if you’re arguing over basic objective, a priori truths, you’ve already lost the plot.
  I disagree. I would argue it is "of consequence" if someone is unable to look at the available data and come to the conclusion that the planet we're standing on is round. Especially if that person is in a position of power or influence over others, because their capacity to make rational conclusions from available information is profoundly corrupted. e.g.: They shouldn't be a science teacher at a school because they don't understand even basic scientific principles that are universally understood.
  Claiming I can’t ever prove to you that this case in front of me is green because what even is green is just… dumb.
  Good thing I didn't say that, then!
- Pareto principle, 80% of the effect is determined by 20% of the variables. To get "all of the data" on an open ended question would be fruitless, but you can be reasonably sure of a theory the more evidence corroborates it. Nothing can ever truly be known in a Platonic sense, but the basis of science is in "most likely"s.
  
  Same thing here. Now you have some “principle” to back you up claiming you can get “ enough”.
  Like ok. So when they scan you for that rare space disease that causes people to literally blow up, you’d be fine with them ending the scan at 90% right? Right?
  There is no data that isn’t valuable and can sway the ultimate conclusion. None. Only humans have the audacity to think they can cherry pick which lol.
  Bro. Take a hard look at yourself.
  
  I'm not fine with 90%, but 90% is significantly more reassuring and evidence-based than 0%. And if measuring that last 10% would mean some type of logistical nightmare, then we can act with relative assurance on a 90% likelihood. If you didn't know, that's how every fucking scientific test works. P-value of 0.1.
  
  It only takes one zombie to raze a bunker full of people. It only takes one cough to infect someone with a cold. It only takes $1 to mark your payment NSF and incur the penalty.
  That’s the point I’m trying to make. That 10% could be HUGE! You can’t quantity life and say “we almost got there, but let’s just say we did.” Would you say I won the race if I only made it 90% of the way?
  You need to change your conception “evidence.” Like I asked before, if you had a fatal disease, would you be willing to bet your life on a 90% scan?
  Arguments are cool and all, but at the end of the day, you need them to actually have real implications or else… like why?
  
  I don't get it. Are you rejecting science as a tool for discerning truth? Did you even read my post? Because I did answer your question about the 90%.

50 comments