No it hasn't. Explain. — Bartricks

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/594855

No, matey, you haven't. You don't know, do you? Pssst: it doesn't.

Maybe we should stop butterflies flapping their wings - they cause tornadoes, you know! Experts tell us.

The self-proclaimed ethics expert, folks.

:lol:

Reading comprehension isn’t a requirement for ethics curricula anymore, I guess.

You’re not only risking your own life. The protection rate for vaccines is 90+ %, which is very good, but still people can get it. That’s one fact. — Xtrix

And how many of those die from the virus, Xtrix? Virtually none. You'd have to lock us down for regular flue, Xtrix! I hope you don't drive. There's a vanishing small possibility that you'll run someone over at some point. So keep it in the garage!!!

And then there's sick little tiny Tim ....but what about the children!!

Can you actually address something I've said? — Bartricks

If you promise to read every damn response I've thrown at ya so far.

Er, what? I did. You just said some stuff. Didn't address anything I'd said. Start by reading what I have said and addressing it. That's my advice. In fact, don't leave your house until you have done so.

I did. Maybe you need to re-read my posts like, 5 times?

And how many of those die from the virus, Xtrix? — Bartricks

And then there's sick little tiny Tim ....but what about the children!! — Bartricks

Thousands dead every week, hospital ICUs pushed to capacity, during a worldwide pandemic, and this is what gets said.

Just another anti-vaxxer disguising himself. I’m glad to have helped to reveal it, at least.

Don’t bother. This imbecile is another example of a lost cause— he has no interest in learning anything, and apparently doesn’t allow himself to even hear anything (“you said some stuff”). That’s impressive!

Oh well.

“But I’m an ethics expert and you aren’t!”
:lol:

he has no interest in learning anything — Xtrix

Don't say that. He might have a learning disability. :fear:

Don't say that. He might have a learning disability. — Wheatley

Fair point.

No— this seems right, but is completely wrong. Which you would know if you deigned to read what doctors and the CDC say about this. Completely open to everyone to learn— simple google search would do.

You’re not only risking your own life. The protection rate for vaccines is 90+ %, which is very good, but still people can get it. That’s one fact.

More importantly, there are other people who are unvaccinated (like children, and those who can’t get vaccinated for reasons beyond refusal) who will be impacted.

There is also the fact of overwhelming hospital ICUs, which is happening in Idaho and across the south— which has wide ranging effects on heath care personnel as well as people with other health concerns.

Less people get vaccinated, less chance of reaching herd immunity.

Lastly, there’s the greater possibility of mutation as the virus continues to spread— mutations which will effect everyone, as the delta variant is — only with the possibility of being vaccine resistant.

There are thousands of deaths every week. This effects everyone. We have a vaccine which can stop it, as every major medical organization has stated and is why they are pushing for people to receive them. — Xtrix

Worth repeating for those genuinely curious — and interested in the facts (upon which we base our ethical decisions).

All these factors have to be considered together, not isolated and minimized.

Apparently one simply has to NOT be an “ethical expert” to see these simple facts.

You don't seem to understand what a big factor unknown variables play in probability theory.
Are two writers working together on a book more likely to write a best seller than 1 writer working alone?
I imagine you do, which means you are assuming a bunch of variables without warrant.
Some writers, scientists, etc, work better alone. Joint efforts can work better in some cases, especially when the answer is predetermined and proof readers are just checking for commonly known mistakes. I don't deny that more is more when more is more, but its not always. Some times more is not more, and sometimes less is more. The answer before enough variables are known is: It depends.

Here is another example.
Two martial arts experts vs 1 martial arts expert.
Which side is more likely to win, if that is all we know?
Answer: It depends. Are they at an equal level of expertise? Are they all in their prime?
Two fifty year old small built martial artists may be no match for one 25 year old huge built martial artist. We don't just get to assume an equal playing field because all of them have the same title of Martial Arts Expert

There is this myth that the world of Science doesn't work like other fields. That in science everything is clear cut and absolute and simple. I am challenging that myth.

I am vaccinated. Now, try and explain something - anything. Just try. Not much of a thinker, are we?

And how many of those die from the virus, Xtrix? Virtually none. — Bartricks

I think this is a valid point, so far as it goes. The vaccine does not immunize you against infection, just reduces your chances substantially, but the evidence is also strong that it reduces the severity and duration of the illness.

But since uptake of the vaccine has been relatively slow in the United States, there is still a large portion of the population the virus can spread through essentially unchecked. There may have been a window, earlier on, for getting enough of the population vaccinated quickly that the virus would have much less opportunity for reproduction -- herd immunity -- but that window seems to have closed. Since the virus still has a steady supply of new hosts to spread to, it is continuing to mutate, and that's trouble. I believe several prominent virologists and epidemiologists (maybe Andrew Pollard?) have expressed a concern that the virus may yet throw up a variant that it is even more effective at infecting the vaccinated. And I see no reason to assume that we won't end up fighting a variant that causes more severe illness among the vaccinated -- though that's admittedly speculation on my part, and I don't want to lean too heavily on dangers we might face. On top of all that, it is known that resistance to coronaviruses fades over time. It's still there, but the immune response seems to be somewhat less robust many many months after exposure or vaccination.

All of which is to say it is more than paternalistic concern for the well-being of the unvaccinated that leads genuine experts to want as many people as possible to get vaccinated. The longer the enemy is in the field, changing as it reproduces, the harder the enemy is to fight. A lot of this is about timing.

I noted in other thread what I will note here. Bartricks is a waste of time. Be wise and don't waste your time, and don't feed the Bartricks. Unless he start to make sense, but best to wait for that.

You don't seem to understand what a big factor unknown variables play in probability theory.
Are two writers working together on a book more likely to write a best seller than 1 writer working alone?
I imagine you do, which means you are assuming a bunch of variables without warrant. — Yohan

I anticipated you would get fixated on the example, but not the principle. So be it.

Some writers, scientists, etc, work better alone. Joint efforts can work better in some cases, especially when the answer is predetermined and proof readers are just checking for commonly known mistakes. I don't deny that more is more when more is more, but its not always. Some times more is not more, and sometimes less is more. The answer before enough variables are known is: It depends. — Yohan

I’m not talking about “joint efforts.”

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. — Xtrix

Two martial arts experts vs 1 martial arts expert.
Which side is more likely to win, if that is all we know?
Answer: It depends. — Yohan

Yes, but calculating the exact odds aren’t the issue. Why? Because with incomplete information— in this case limited to 2 against 1 — we have a choice: do we bet on the 1 or on the 2?

The question isn’t “what’s the EXACT probability”? The two could be 5th degree black belts, the one could be Jet Li — that changes things. But we don’t know any of that. We also aren’t expert enough to say which material arts style pairs well against another, even if we knew the styles. And on and on. There are many variables. That’s not the question.

The question, to take the obvious case, is: do we, as laymen, knowing nothing else (a crucial point which you continually want to divert from), go with the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, or do we go with the minority view? The 97% or the 3%?

To shift to your example: there’s 97 martial artists against 3. Knowing nothing else, what is your choice for who wins?

If you really can’t bring yourself to admit you’d go with the 97, then you’re simply arguing for other reasons — which I can guess about, but which are completely irrational. The answer is obvious, and has been my only point all along. If you don’t want to concede that, that’s your issue. But as I said before, it’s essentially a truism.

There is this myth that the world of Science doesn't work like other fields. That in science everything is clear cut and absolute and simple. I am challenging that myth. — Yohan

No, what you’re doing is creating a straw man. You can have fun destroying it if you like— so you can feel like you’re accomplishing something— but it makes no difference, because I’ve never remotely argued that everything in science is “clear cut and absolute and simple.” Never.

:clap:

You’re a more patient man than I.

I noted in other thread what I will note here. Bartricks is a waste of time. Be wise and don't waste your time, and don't feed the Bartricks. Unless he starts to make sense, but best to wait for that. — tim wood

Where was this advice two pages ago?

The question, to take the obvious case, is: do we, as laymen, knowing nothing else (a crucial point which you continually want to divert from), go with the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, or do we go with the minority view? The 97% or the 3%? — Xtrix

I haven't researched this issue, but I'd go with the 3% because its more likely the majority is influenced by group think, while the minority are better at thinking out side of the box (less biased and influenced by peer pressure)
Call me a crazy conspiracy theorist, if you will.

The question, to take the obvious case, is: do we, as laymen, knowing nothing else (a crucial point which you continually want to divert from), go with the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, or do we go with the minority view? The 97% or the 3%?
— Xtrix
I haven't researched this issue, but I'd go with the 3% because its more likely the majority is influenced by group think, while the minority are better at thinking out side of the box (less biased and influenced by peer pressure) — Yohan

:lol:

So you'd also go with the 3 martial artists over the 97. In other words, you're an imbecile (apologies for the accuracy). Fair enough. Stick with it.

(Or it's "more likely" that the 3% are bought off by fossil fuel interests -- which indeed is the case. It's also "more likely" that the small group of Creationists who argue for a Biblical flood are influenced by religious beliefs. But you go with those guys.)

The question, to take the obvious case, is: do we, as laymen, knowing nothing else (a crucial point which you continually want to divert from), go with the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, or do we go with the minority view? The 97% or the 3%?
— Xtrix

I haven't researched this issue, but I'd go with the 3% — Yohan

Does the Philosophy Forum have a Hall of Fame for the most stupid answers?

If you really can’t bring yourself to admit you’d go with the 97, then you’re simply arguing for other reasons — which I can guess about, but which are completely irrational. — Xtrix

So you'd also go with the 3 martial artists over the 97. In other words, you're an imbecile. Fair enough. Stick with it. — Xtrix

Yes. If someone said there is a match of 3 martial artists vs 97, and told me I could not know anything else about the match, and asked me to place a bet, I would think its likely a set up and place my bet on the 3. Probably the 3 have some unfair advantage that wasn't stated. Seems pretty obvious to me.

So you'd also go with the 3 martial artists over the 97. In other words, you're an imbecile. Fair enough. Stick with it.
— Xtrix
Yes. If someone said there is a match of 3 martial artists vs 97, and told me I could not know anything else about the match, and asked me to place a bet, I would think its likely a set up and place my bet on the 3. Probably the 3 have some unfair advantage that wasn't stated. Seems pretty obvious to me. — Yohan

:rofl:

Actually had me laughing. I appreciate it.

Remind your friends never to gamble with you. Roulette: "I'll place my money on GREEN -- seems likely there's a set up going on."

I appreciate it. — Xtrix

:strong:

(Or it's "more likely" that the 3% are bought off by fossil fuel interests -- which indeed is the case. It's also "more likely" that the small group of Creationists who argue for a Biblical flood are influenced by religious beliefs. But you go with those guys.) — Xtrix

Yeah, come to think of it, that sounds more likely. I concede the point. :up:

I wouldn't put Anti-Vaxxers, 9/11 Truthers and Climate Deniers in the same basket with Flat-Earthers and Creationists. Covid 19 Anti-Vaxxers have good reasons to be skeptical, same for 9/11 Truthers and Climate Deniers. Sure there are crazys in these groups but not all of them are.

Sure there are crazys in these groups but not all of them are. — RAW

No. They all are, but some crazier than others.