Its obvious. Nobody just drinks a random bottle. Especially with a pungent smell.
You haven't thought this through at all have you?

One way I've thought of it is, out of all professionals, the majority will be most likely be of fairly average general competence when compared to all other professionals in that field, while there would be at least two groups of small minorities, the far below average and the far above average professionals. So that when there is any professional who comes to a different conclusion than the majority, there is roughly a 50% chance that the person will be in the far below or far above average group. — Yohan

Am I the only one following this? Is anyone else reading it?

lol

@Ambrosia, you believe viruses but not germ theory...? :brow:

I believe neither.
Both are science fiction.

Can the moderators please remove this person's posts from my thread? He's contributing nothing and he's basically spamming. Thank you. @Banno@Hanover

So the variable that matters is how hard the flaw is to spot, not how many experts spot it. — Isaac

This argument seems like it makes sense, but how exactly is "how hard the flaw is to spot" defined? As I understand it, you want this to be the independent variable; it is not defined as the percentage of experts within a population that miss it. But that's pretty weird because, on the one hand, "spotting" is a concept that implies the gaze of an expert, and, on the other hand, the percentage of the expert population that misses it tracks exactly how hard it is to spot. They're equivalent, aren't they?

Now, I'm the first to admit that my stats fu is weak, but I think the argument you'd rather be making is that we don't know enough about the problem to know what sample size we need to be confident in our conclusion. Maybe only one in x engineers will spot the mistake, and so far you've asked 5. Is 5 enough? Dunno. Maybe x is 2, maybe x is 20.

It's an interesting analogy, but I'm having trouble thinking of any conceivable use for it. If we actually did stuff this way (instead of what experts actually do, learn from each other's mistakes) then we would collect data that would help us estimate x. We would not leave ourselves in the position of having absolutely no idea what its value might be.

Whiskey isn't pungent? Tangerines aren't pungent? Tea leaves?

We must smell things quite differently.

Well, , you've already admitted the flu, measles, and whatever. :D

You said bleach,now you changing the issue?
Disingenuous.
Bleach smells a lot different than whisky,tangerines and tea leaves.
You in the habit of drinking from strange bottles with a very unappetising smell?

Yes. Those are illness not viruses.

I think @Xtrix is right about you.

Anyway, it was fun.

And you, if you keep it up, will likely (and rightly) be banned from this site. It's almost a certainty you're a returning member, so I'd say "banned again."

This level of fear is unusual.

:yawn:

, I guess ebola (a germ) would be just another day out in the woods to you? :D
There is such a thing as ignorance gone dangerous and incorrigibility makes it worse. (n)
You just don't do me any favors ya' hear.

@jorndoe
Remember when certain countries had doctors sterilising people in the name of eugenics,and curing gay people with medical "cures"?
Well you had scientific and public support for those as well. And folks of similiar mindset
to you and xtrix and others would have defended these in the name of medical science whilst trying to marginalise opposition and dissenting voices.
You feel good about being on the wrong side of history?
@Xtrix

but how exactly is "how hard the flaw is to spot" defined? As I understand it, you want this to be the independent variable; it is not defined as the percentage of experts within a population that miss it. But that's pretty weird because, on the one hand, "spotting" is a concept that implies the gaze of an expert, and, on the other hand, the percentage of the expert population that misses it tracks exactly how hard it is to spot. They're equivalent, aren't they? — Srap Tasmaner

One can be measured by the other as a proxy, but a flaw's difficulty to spot exists independently of the existence of experts spotting it, so it's still an independent variable.

I'm having trouble thinking of any conceivable use for it. If we actually did stuff this way (instead of what experts actually do, learn from each other's mistakes) then we would collect data that would help us estimate x. We would not leave ourselves in the position of having absolutely no idea what its value might be. — Srap Tasmaner

Exactly. Consider it a proof of principle if you like. The question is the positive predictive power of the variable {degree of agreement in a cohort}. I've engineered an example where the PPP is actually 0, just to show how it's done, but in reality we do know some things about a question's orthodoxy, so the PPP of the variable might well be above zero. The point is it's just never that good because of the uncertainty about how many experts we'd expect to miss the flaw.

There are simply way better variables available, in terms of this PPP. The factors I listed in my first post in this, for example. To borrow a term from Taleb, one of the strongest variables in terms of PPP is the degree of 'skin in the game'. The engineer who gets sacked if the bridge fails will spot a flaw 99 of his less involved colleagues will miss. If someone is risking ridicule and ostracisation supporting a theory, they're far more likely to have checked it thoroughly than a hundred comfortable peers publishing what they already know will be well accepted and applauded.

This is why I find this modern trend toward tribalism so repugnant. It exaggerates the degree to which publishing in line with current thinking is in one's best interests which makes it less likely that such papers are going to be thoroughly checked (there's no real 'skin in the game') and so 'current thinking' can drift unchecked. But that's another issue...

The point here is simply that degree of agreement in a cohort is simply a low value variable when it comes to likelihood of being right compared to other more powerful ones like skin in the game. It gets more powerful the greater the heritage of the theory (which is why it intuitively feels right - and why xtrix can so easily play on these intuitions by using silly examples like flat earth and vaccination in general). They're well established theories so the PPP of agreement in a cohort is quite high, though still not great. But with newer theories, the PPP of agreement within a cohort is terrible, worse still when the public debate is so toxic.

Yeah! And Nuttsies - that's what they're called, right? They did bad things too. So there! Nyah!

Ambrosia, yours a remarkably stupid argument.

Excellent reasoning tim! Take a bow!

"Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM."

I boxed without a headguard. — Ambrosia

That might explain it.

, as far as I recall, outlawing and attempting to "cure" homosexuality has mostly come from religion.

Not aware of the conflict inflation fallacy I see — here, here.
_{(maybe not faulty generalization, prejudice, poisoning the well, invincible ignorance (and incorrigibility), "I'm entitled to my opinion", either)}

And here we are, communicating almost instantaneously worldwide over the Internet using complex electronic devices, where diabetes is no longer a slow death sentence, navigating using the Global Positioning System, having all-but eradicated cholera, enjoying electricity and clean water in the house, reasonably working treatments of schizophrenia thus far, ... (y)

Medicine/science informs, ethics/morals decides, policies/politics implements. — jorndoe

Science is descriptive/propositional, morals are proscriptive/performative. Conflating them all is just bad discourse.

The point here is simply that degree of agreement in a cohort is simply a low value variable when it comes to likelihood of being right compared to other more powerful ones like skin in the game. — Isaac

@Srap Tasmaner

I'll keep repeating it for others' sake, since this guy is mentally blocked from hearing it:

The question is about laypeople. Given no other information but consensus within a field, what is the better bet. Is it better to go with the overwhelming scientific and medical consensus, or not? That's the only question raised here, all these desperate contortions and embarrassing digressions aside (the reason for which is to convince oneself that one is correct after being shown one's decision is remarkably silly).

The example was raised in this thread in response to the fact that none of us are experts in the fields mentioned in the title -- climatology, medicine, virology, etc.

If one really believes the chances of 99 doctors being right versus 1 is 50/50, then one has failed in mathematics -- in probability, in statistics -- and in logic.

The correct answer, and obvious to any thinking being, is to go with the 99 doctors. This is not difficult.

If 99% of experiments show the same result, we have far more confidence than it were less.

Going with the international scientific consensus on climate change is the right move for a layperson. Going with the medical consensus in the 70s and 80s regarding smoking and cancer, rather than tobacco-sponsored "dissenting views," was the correct answer. And so forth.

Yep. Most boxers would blast your ivory tower world.

Yes. Just ignore the history of medicine, its monoplisation of drugs,its ruthless pursuit of money,influence and lies.

Gay cures and Eugenics were done by doctors and informed by medicine.
You cannot seperate medicine from ethics.

I've worked with schizophrenics and seen the medical maltreatment and recourse to the chemical cosh and electroshock therapy. Remember lobotomy? Thalidomide.

You are aware of the official work of medical doctors in government torture and the manufacture and sale of nasty weapons by engineers and scientists? Are scientists absolved of moral responsibility for those as well?

Just ignore the history of medicine — Ambrosia

That's pretty much what I haven't been doing.
But, seeing you're impervious to facts and oblivious of faults, what does it matter?

_{• Tuberculosis therapy: past, present and future (Jan 25, 2002)
• Typhoid Mary: Villain or Victim? (Oct 16, 2013)
• Treatment of Tuberculosis. A Historical Perspective (Oct 14, 2015)
• History of Vaccines - Government Regulation (Jan 17, 2018)
• History of 1918 Flu Pandemic (Mar 21, 2018)
• Cases of measles and deaths per 100000, per year, in the United States over the 20th century (Jul 26, 2019)
• Measles (Dec 5, 2019)
• The 1918 Spanish flu killed 8,000 people in Colorado, but Gunnison only had 2 cases. Here’s why (Mar 4, 2020)
• How Typhoid Mary left a trail of scandal and death (Apr 20, 2020)
• Pandemics Throughout History (Jan 15, 2021)
• Spanish flu: the virus that changed the world (Mar 2, 2021)
• How the COVID-19 vaccines were created so quickly - Kaitlyn Sadtler and Elizabeth Wayne (5m:7s) (Aug 17, 2021)
• Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services: In 1954, polio was a terrifying reality (Sep 14, 2021)
• Measles - Timeline (Sep 15, 2021)
• International Organizations, Vaccine Manufacturers Agree to Intensify Cooperation to Deliver COVID-19 Vaccines (Sep 16, 2021)
(not that it matters, my tracker has 228 entries as of typing)}

Yes,you just ignore the substantive points and examples I gave and resort to tired government historical propoganda articles.
As though articles are proof.

Hell there are articles that talk about cold fusion and quantum time travel!

Look at the "scientific" "predictions" from the past. Said the oil would run out way before now.
You been hoodwinked fella.

Yep. Most boxers would blast your ivory tower world. — Ambrosia

They would not be able to find it or enter it, let alone "blast it". But by all means go back to boxing without a headguard and give your brain the only workout it seems likely to get.

Pedant.
Try some sports,good for your mind,might improve your lame attempts at humour.

Making assumptions are one mark of an uncultivated mind; you know nothing about me or what sports I might participate in.

My attempts at humour might be lame, but yours haven't even learned to crawl.