2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
Are we still at the stage where the computer doesn't tell the doctor what the probabilities are?
AI is much better at diagnosis. Doctors still has a bit of a role role doing the tests, judging/inputing the symptoms and telling us to eat/drink less
Let's just take a step back here. Nobody ITT who is claiming that others are saying experts are infallible (nobody is arguing that) or misusing/abusing "appeal to authority" as a criticism of arguments others are making has any issue whatsoever accepting expert opinion on absolutely anything where they agree with or are indifferent to the experts' conclusion(s). It all seems like a disingenuous attempt to discredit experts in the very narrow context where they don't like the conclusions for ideological or other reasons.
That's fine. But if I wanted to make an argument about gender studies, my only evidence is going to come from work done by others, experts if you will. Same if I wanted to make an argument about chemistry, since I don't do my own experiments, or physics, because I'm not smart enough to come up with quantum mechanics or the theory of relativity myself.
.
Yeah I suppose. I definitely chose linguistics for my example for a reason because I've read enough linguistics papers to understand that while yes there are obviously still plenty of citations the typical form of argument is " this language does X, and this language does Y, and this language does Z and when you put those all together we can make this theory about how language works".
And sure sometimes you'll need data collected by others because not everyone is expected to know some aboriginal Australian language, and there can be complex terms and ideas. But you can ultimately explain it without the use of experts although in some cases it might require becoming an expert oneself and diving deep into theory.
I think we are talking cross purposes somewhat. I understood the poster saying "define this and that without appeal to authority" to be saying "without relying on any work done by so-called any experts in this field in general" which is of course impossible, and he has since pretty much confirmed that my interpretation was correct. If he meant "you can cite work done by experts as long as it adheres to the scientific method and is not just some pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo", which is more along the lines of what you seem to be arguing, then he should have said that, but again, I'm pretty sure that my original interpretation is what he actually meant
I wasn't arguing that although it certainly seems reasonable.
Idk I was just talking to my mom about when you're supposed to spay your dogs. I've read that you're supposed to wait until after their first heat otherwise it could cause issues with bone development. Maybe that's true maybe it isn't. She asked how I knew it and I was like "idk it's what I read". That's definitely an appeal to experts.
But if I actually read up on it some, understood the studies and whatever mechanisms are involved and could explain them then I would no longer be appealing to experts even if I had to cite some of them because I haven't done the studies myself.
My argument is that when you see appeals to experts it's out of ignorance. I don't know if it should be considered a logical fallacy but I don't really consider "all of these people say X" to be a valid form of argument.
But if I actually read up on it some, understood the studies and whatever mechanisms are involved and could explain them then I would no longer be appealing to experts even if I had to cite some of them because I haven't done the studies myself.
My argument is that when you see appeals to experts it's out of ignorance. I don't know if it should be considered a logical fallacy but I don't really consider "all of these people say X" to be a valid form of argument.
You wouldn't be "appealing to experts" because you'd be one. So you would be relying on ("appealing to", if you like) your own expertise. I'm sure you will agree that we can't expect everyone to spend the time becoming an expert on every topic where they might want to have even a passing opinion. So, I disagree that it's out of ignorance, unless you define "ignorance" as literally not knowing everything about everything.
And if you did and still seriously disagreed with the plumber you would be the favorite.
My point was just that plumbing and medicine are not really comparable. There are plenty of medical treatments that work and the justification is double blind studies show it’s effective and safe but the mechanism isn’t really understood by anyone. Plumbing, electrical or any contract work done on my house I can understand in a way it’s not possible for anyone to understand medicine.
It all seems like a disingenuous attempt to discredit experts in the very narrow context where they don't like the conclusions for ideological or other reasons.
Not in my case.
But the fact is that most doctors aren't smart.
Doctor errors are the third leading cause of death in America.
Second opinions find a misdiagnosis more than a quarter of the time and the Mayo Clinic changes the therapy a total of 70%.
There are notable exceptions though.
My argument is that when you see appeals to experts it's out of ignorance. I don't know if it should be considered a logical fallacy but I don't really consider "all of these people say X" to be a valid form of argument.
It is out of ignarance to a large extent. The problem some people wont recognise how ignorant they are.
I know something about climate change but I also recognise I am basically ignorant so rely on what the experts say if I need to make a decision. I'm not going to check ocean warming, or ice caps melting or ozone holes etc etc etc. Same with so much*
The problem is people believing stuff that requires decisions and then disagree with the expert view even when they are ignorant.
and to address DS's point
If were reasonably clever then we can olften easily become more expert on our specific condition then your average doctor is going to be. Same with plumbers etc. We can quickly fix most of this leval of ignorance.
It is out of ignarance to a large extent. The problem some people wont recognise how ignorant they are.
I know something about climate change but I also recognise I am basically ignorant so rely on what the experts say if I need to make a decision. I'm not going to check ocean warming, or ice caps melting or ozone holes etc etc etc. Same with so much*
The problem is people believing stuff that requires decisions and then disagree with the expert view even when they are ignorant.
No, the problem is that people use "ignorant" and "uninformed" as synonyms. Those words have different connotations.
Not in my case.
But the fact is that most doctors aren't smart.
Doctor errors are the third leading cause of death in America.
Second opinions find a misdiagnosis more than a quarter of the time and the Mayo Clinic changes the therapy a total of 70%.
There are notable exceptions though.
Of course if you're going for a second opinion it's typically going to be because the first opinion has issues. So it's a skewed sample there.
“Changing therapy” seems pretty vague. Like changing f(x)=x to f(y)=y is a change. But arbitrary.
That's just not true. This is a commonly repeated distortion. You can read more about it here:
I find it amusing that this even passes anyone's smell test so much that they don't even question it enough to verify it. Not surprising, but amusing, especially given the current conversation.
Bookies have Trump as a favourite now @ 8/13 VS Harris 5/4.
If the Democrats can't win after pulling the black woman card, the economy must be even worse than I thought.
Yeah they have for a little while now, mostly because republicans are spamming us with biased polls and musk and another whale or two are flooding the betting markets.
That's just not true. This is a commonly repeated distortion. You can read more about it here:
I find it amusing that this even passes anyone's smell test so much that they don't even question it enough to verify it. Not surprising, but amusing, especially given the current conversation.
My neighbor is a John's Hopkins trained doctor who quoted that statistic to me just a few days ago. I agree it didn't seem reasonable, but you can't expect the general public to disagree with a study when doctors themselves don't make an effort to double check. In any case it doesn't change the fact that people who are smart and have studied a medical issue a bit have a good chance to be right when disagreeing with a below average doctor especially regarding a controversial issue.
you can't expect the general public to disagree with a study when doctors themselves don't make an effort to double check.
I thought we were arguing for challenging doctors, specifically in areas that are not their focus? I guess I can't keep up with how we want to spin things to keep believing what we choose to these days. If only people were as motivated to challenge him on things that confirm their bias as they are on things that go against it, huh?
This is a segue, and veering into sexual dimorphism evolutionary psychology, but Yglesias has noted that much of the polarization seems to be fueled by sex/gender polarization.
This is the primary lens I view the divide as well.
To help explain, I want you to imagine there is a mother with many daughters and one son. The home they live in isnÂ’t ideal, but the daughters, being female, are willing to make the best of it. In contrast, the son, being male, is unwilling to compromise and go along pretending that the home is satisfactory.
How should the mother handle the situation? One version of the mother sides with the many daughters over the son. The son is causing division and is a disruption to the collective attempt at order and good homemaking. So the mother throws the son out into the outer darkness with the deplorables for the sake of unity. If there is one narrative and one mind, the house will be improved for the collective and truth should be about whatÂ’s better for the collective even at the expense of the few. The son is toxic.
Another version of the mother listens to the son and realizes the son is speaking the truth. The family deserves better and should move to a better home. This mother also wants unity but is willing to suffer division in the short term because the sonÂ’s voice is necessary. Even though the son overreacts and is bitter and resentful for being cast out by mother #1, mother #2 stands by the son.
This is a perennial symbolic story and it doesnÂ’t map on perfectly to the current political divide, but itÂ’s highly relevant.
I thought we were arguing for challenging doctors, specifically in areas that are not their focus? I guess I can't keep up with how we want to spin things to keep believing what we choose to these days. If only people were as motivated to challenge him on things that confirm their bias as they are on things that go against it, huh?
Lol right?
Sklansky: Doctors aren't very smart and so we should take their judgement with a large pinch of salt and do our own research.
Also Sklansky: Here's a statistic I like. A doctor told it to me, of course I'm going to trust it!
The question is if Sklansky is no longer willing to take medical or Putnam advice from his Juliard trained physician neighbor.
Bonus for Sklansky, though: he now has the opportunity to 1) correct an obviously harmful bit of misinformation that is being spread, 2) make the doctor feel a lot better about himself and his profession, 3) feel a little intellectually superior while correcting him in the process.
I'm sure he'll jump on this chance.
I guess it's possible he only corrects people on their objective opinions though, and not facts. I've heard that's a thing.
I guess it's possible he only corrects people on their objective opinions though, and not facts. I've heard that's a thing.
Lulz. Gonna take a while for homeslice to live that one down. Especially with all the posturing he has been doing lately about how smart he is and how dumb everyone else is.
