Yvain comments on Diseased thinking: dissolving questions about disease - Less Wrong

236 Post author: Yvain 30 May 2010 09:16PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (343)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: soreff 31 May 2010 07:01:16PM *  2 points [-]

Very good article!

A couple of comments:

So here, at last, is a rule for which diseases we offer sympathy, and which we offer condemnation: if giving condemnation instead of sympathy decreases the incidence of the disease enough to be worth the hurt feelings, condemn; otherwise, sympathize.

Almost agreed: It is also important to recheck criterion 4:

Something unpleasant; when you have it, you want to get rid of it

to see if reducing the incidence of the disease is actually a worthwhile goal.

On another note:

Cancer satisfies every one of these criteria, and so we have no qualms whatsoever >about classifying it as a disease.

Criterion 3:

Something rare; the vast majority of people don't have it

is somewhat arguable, at least for some types. Quoth Wikipedia

Autopsy studies of Chinese, German, Israeli, Jamaican, Swedish, and Ugandan men who died of other causes have found prostate cancer in thirty percent of men in their 50s, and in eighty percent of men in their 70s

Comment author: Yvain 31 May 2010 09:54:55PM 2 points [-]

Good points. But prostate cancer might be an "ostrich" version of cancer (see the link on "ostrich" above) and something like breast cancer might be considered more like a type specimen.