Comment on Action vs. inaction

Tue, 01 Dec 2009 01:10:59 GMT

I don't see any particular evidence of bias in the factors they say they made their decision on in the linked report. The shortcoming I see in the report is that many of the factors mentioned are not quantified and it is not clear to me whether the recommendation given is based on a calculation that is not laid out in the report or whether the calculation was never done. There is simply not enough information in the report to determine whether the recommendation is justified.

Your criticism of the recommendation suffers from exactly the same shortcoming. You state your conclusion without quantifying the factors involved or showing the calculation you used to reach the conclusion. It also seems to me that you neglect to mention some relevant factors which the original report at least suggests were considered. Your implication is that the original report places a much lower value on human life than is used when making other decisions, or that it places an unduly high weight on the negative utility of 'anxiety', but neither the report or your criticism provide any concrete quantification of those factors.

Discuss