pull down to refresh
100 sats \ 2 replies \ @xz 29 Jul \ on: Lowest Six-Month Human Death Toll From Bad Weather Ever (The Daily Sceptic) ideasfromtheedge
Interesting. I find it hard to disagree for the most part.
So, without a concise topic boundary, and if we just took this whole debate generally, I'd say I find truth often lies somewhere in the middle.
To narrow down on the stats and their implications, you'd naturally come to the conclusions that you do, that there's a massive perception problem. Let's just say 'for whatever reasons'.
I guess related to the sentence I quoted above, we could say somethings with a relative degree of certainty, even without specifics. For example.
Pollution. Is it real? Yes. Is it a problem? Quite possibly beyond simple undesirable cosmetic effects. How much of a problem? We're only just beginning to look at how certain materials might pose serious risks for the world and it's inhabitants (not just the occasional picture of a badger or a seal with it's nose stuck in a discarded plastic form.)
So what's the extent of problems and defensive measures?
Well, this is nothing new as even before plastics, for example, people saw the need to build all kinds of defensive measures against all kinds of natural and human threats or byproducts of those threats.
When I look the above dataset, I find it hard to really say much, conclusively, other than from the angle of the snapshot that the data provides. Like, what would you really be looking at if you zoomed out with accurate data on larger, much larger timescales. What would that data look like applied to a hypothetical, or even a real comparative set of data from other planets, galaxies.. possible lifeforms, environments.
It's all very inconclusive IMO. Sure, there are certain assumptions that might be held and considered, valuable data and conclusions, but really, do we know what we're talking about for sure, most f the time?
How much of a problem? We're only just beginning to look at how certain materials might pose serious risks for the world and it's inhabitants (not just the occasional picture of a badger or a seal with it's nose stuck in a discarded plastic form.)
Exactly.
It's all very inconclusive IMO
Exactly, and I think that that's a function of polarization too: it only gets more and more fuzzy and actually obstructs not only research but also common-sense action. Every choice is measured against extremes too, and if you dare implementing a middle ground solution, then you upset both ends of the spectrum, and no one likes bad publicity and demonstrators at the gates.
In the end, if we want progress, we need to get real solutions, not pie-in-the-sky narratives.
reply
It only gets more and more fuzzy and actually obstructs not only research but also common-sense action
Agree. Recently, I was arguing something opposite when I heard somebody discussing this in a political context rather than scientific or logical. They were saying exactly what you are with regards to middle ground and progress. I guess they had a point there. Extremism on a political scale is equally unhelpful. I was trying to make the case that there are certain times and situations perhaps when you actually might need extreme action and reverse course. I guess I didn't make the case well, and the OP probably thought I was just trying to play devil's advocate.
I was just looking at the term 'fuzzy logic' as I kind of forgot what that pertained to (I have no math background) but thought it quite interesting again.
Fuzzy logic and vagueness
Modeling reasoning with vague predicates and propositions is often cited as the main motivation for introducing fuzzy logics. There are many alternative theories of vagueness, but there is a general agreement that the susceptibility to the sorites paradox is a main feature of vagueness. Consider the following version of the paradox: 10100 is a huge number. If n is a huge number, then nā1 is also huge. On the face of it, it seems not to be unreasonable to accept these two assumptions. By instantiating n with 10100 in and applying modus ponens ... we conclude that 10100ā1 is huge. By simply repeating this type of inference we arrive at the unreasonable statement 0 is a huge number.
Yeah, there's a lot to be said for a common sense being under-rated IMO.
reply