No, I need something to trust before I make a voluntary decision.
I mean, I can be forced to make a decision. If someone threatens me, I would comply. But to make a decision, for example, get a covid booster or not, is based on my understanding and trust in the benefit or absence of any benefit.
No, I need something to trust before I make a voluntary decision.
No, you don't.
If you are thinking about asking a woman out, do you need to trust that she will say "yes" before making the decision to ask her out?
If you are thinking on rolling dice, do you need to trust that you will get a 7 before making the decision to roll the dice?
I don't understand how people don't even realize how they make decisions. Many of the decisions you make are based on chance, not trust, and most you are not even aware that you made them.
No, my medical decisions are not like asking a woman out.
Yes they are. Rational medical decisions are based on probability, not trust.
I decided to use masks, did I trust that they would work? No.
I decided not to take any COVID-19 shot, did I trust that they weren't safe? No.
Of course, you can make them like rolling a dice but that's not the best way.
You can deny that you rolled the dice all you want, but you did. Rolling a die that has 99% chance of winning is still rolling the dice. You could have been wrong.
If you have 100% certainty that your medical decision is going to be correct, you are simply not rational.
And this is a red herring. You are basically saying "medical decisions are not black swans", but they don't have to be (even though they are), I showed you black swans. Your white swans are irrelevant. Case closed.
If I can show you 10 black swans that prove you wrong, you are just going to deny reality.
I decided not to wear masks because I had no evidence that I could trust. Sometimes I was wearing masks anyway because the state compelled me.
I was ok with taking first 2 covid shots because I trusted the evidence that I had about its effectiveness. I did not trust the evidence about booster shot effectiveness but took it anyway because the state required it for me to travel within the EU. I didn't take any subsequent boosters because the state didn't require them and I didn't trust the evidence.
That's how I operate. I don't understand about rolling a die. I can trust the evidence of the medicine with understanding that it is not 100% certainty. Especially if I know that the medicine works, for example, in 80% or 60% people taking it.
Medical decisions are not black swans because they are completely different things. Black swans are unpredicted events. Medical decision is not an event but a decision. I don't know how to compare them.
So you accept that decisions can be made without trust.
I can trust the evidence of the medicine with understanding that it is not 100% certainty.
That's not what the word "trust" means: "assured reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something".
You did not have any assured reliance of the evidence, so you didn't trust, and that's fine, because trust is not necessary to make decisions.
Medical decisions are not black swans because they are completely different things. Black swans are unpredicted events.
You have zero idea what I'm talking about. Black swans and black ravens are used as examples in confirmation theory to show what confirms and doesn't confirm your theory.
If your theory is that all ravens are black, you showing me a black raven means nothing. On the other hand me showing you one green raven should make you change your mind. I've shown you multiple green ravens, and you still believe all ravens are black.
Nassim Taleb used these examples to develop his notion of black swans as improvable events, but he didn't invent the problem of induction.
I can trust the evidence of the medicine with understanding that it is not 100% certainty.
That's not what the word "trust" means: "assured reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something".
I can trust that the evidence is truthfully reported which includes that the evidence of benefit is, let's say 70%. Don't confuse it with absolute guarantee that the medicines will help in 100% of cases.
You have zero idea what I'm talking about.
Exactly. I have hard time correlating it with what you are saying. I don't have a theory all. I am just saying that my trust increases when I understand the subject matter more.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
You don't need to trust anyone to make a decision. Nor do you need to believe anything.
No, I need something to trust before I make a voluntary decision.
I mean, I can be forced to make a decision. If someone threatens me, I would comply. But to make a decision, for example, get a covid booster or not, is based on my understanding and trust in the benefit or absence of any benefit.
No, you don't.
If you are thinking about asking a woman out, do you need to trust that she will say "yes" before making the decision to ask her out?
If you are thinking on rolling dice, do you need to trust that you will get a 7 before making the decision to roll the dice?
I don't understand how people don't even realize how they make decisions. Many of the decisions you make are based on chance, not trust, and most you are not even aware that you made them.
No, my medical decisions are not like asking a woman out.
Of course, you can make them like rolling a dice but that's not the best way. The whole medical history has led us to this point that we don't.
Yes they are. Rational medical decisions are based on probability, not trust.
I decided to use masks, did I trust that they would work? No.
I decided not to take any COVID-19 shot, did I trust that they weren't safe? No.
You can deny that you rolled the dice all you want, but you did. Rolling a die that has 99% chance of winning is still rolling the dice. You could have been wrong.
If you have 100% certainty that your medical decision is going to be correct, you are simply not rational.
And this is a red herring. You are basically saying "medical decisions are not black swans", but they don't have to be (even though they are), I showed you black swans. Your white swans are irrelevant. Case closed.
If I can show you 10 black swans that prove you wrong, you are just going to deny reality.
I decided not to wear masks because I had no evidence that I could trust. Sometimes I was wearing masks anyway because the state compelled me.
I was ok with taking first 2 covid shots because I trusted the evidence that I had about its effectiveness. I did not trust the evidence about booster shot effectiveness but took it anyway because the state required it for me to travel within the EU. I didn't take any subsequent boosters because the state didn't require them and I didn't trust the evidence.
That's how I operate. I don't understand about rolling a die. I can trust the evidence of the medicine with understanding that it is not 100% certainty. Especially if I know that the medicine works, for example, in 80% or 60% people taking it.
Medical decisions are not black swans because they are completely different things. Black swans are unpredicted events. Medical decision is not an event but a decision. I don't know how to compare them.
So you accept that decisions can be made without trust.
That's not what the word "trust" means: "assured reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something".
You did not have any assured reliance of the evidence, so you didn't trust, and that's fine, because trust is not necessary to make decisions.
You have zero idea what I'm talking about. Black swans and black ravens are used as examples in confirmation theory to show what confirms and doesn't confirm your theory.
If your theory is that all ravens are black, you showing me a black raven means nothing. On the other hand me showing you one green raven should make you change your mind. I've shown you multiple green ravens, and you still believe all ravens are black.
Nassim Taleb used these examples to develop his notion of black swans as improvable events, but he didn't invent the problem of induction.
I can trust that the evidence is truthfully reported which includes that the evidence of benefit is, let's say 70%. Don't confuse it with absolute guarantee that the medicines will help in 100% of cases.
Exactly. I have hard time correlating it with what you are saying. I don't have a theory all. I am just saying that my trust increases when I understand the subject matter more.
Yes, you can, but you wouldn't be rationally justified in doing so, because "trust" means rely on.
This makes no sense. Trust is binary, either you trust, or you don't.
You yourself said that you needed to trust something to make a decisions. So which is it?
And you conveniently ignored my argument.
Do you accept it now? Because you pretty much said it already.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link