[Osx-nutters] Denial

[Stefano Mori]

On 2007-Aug-16, at 05:24, David Cake wrote:

> 	No, Stefano, you are missing the point that there really was
> no way to demonstrate who was right,

In other words, their predictions were not based on evidence. They  
were not empirical. They were not scientific. Because, as you said,  
the prediction was not something that they could "demonstrate".

But you realise that you're assuming "we don't know how to do it"  
means "there is no possible way to do it"?

People assume "there's no way to do it anyway so we should just  
blindly accept scientists' opinions in the form of predictions"?

At the very least we have to be conscious that those scientist's  
opinions are just opinions, they are not empirical predictions.



> Of course the hypothesis of the majority of scientists
*snip*
> hasn't been tested, they only have data about what
> has happened so far. There hadn't been a previous reduction policy to
> confirm their hypothesis that a smoking reduction policy would save
> lives.

Exactly, so at the minimum we start by recognising that even though  
the prediction is made by scientists, the prediction itself is not  
scientific. When people read in the news, "scientists predict..." it  
sounds like the prediction is scientific, but it's usually not.


> 	If I understand your position correctly, applying the same
> standard of reasoning as you do to AGW to smoking would mean not
> applying those results to the population until we were 'empirically'
> sure. Watching a control group of enforced non-smokers for 20 years
> or something (if the Phillip Morris guys were correct, results of the
> previous control group who just happened not to smoke would be
> invalid), simply delaying acting by a few decades until you are
> 'empirically' sure, rather than just most scientists being pretty
> sure. Of course, millions might die in the mean time....

I'm glad you didn't say "will die". At least "might die" is a fair  
statement.

In terms of prediction, did you hear about that issue recently with  
AIDS in Africa? They established a mechanism whereby AIDS could be  
transmitted by breast milk. They modeled how this would spread  
through the population. It obviously meant more deaths from AIDS. So  
they campaigned and educated women to give their babies a formula  
instead. It now appears that those babies fed on a formula have  
severely weakened health, perhaps because the water was not clean, or  
perhaps because there was something in breast milk which they needed  
to build their own immune system. These babies have been getting  
dysentery and dying. Something like eight times more babies have been  
dying than normal. In effect, the prediction about babies dying of  
AIDS has led to FAR MORE BABIES DYING of dysentery than were  
predicted to die of AIDS. They had data, they had a mechanism, they  
had a model, and they made a prediction, they acted on that prediction.

You keep being naive and Nature will bite you hard.

Stefano