= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
entirelyuseless comments on Is the average ethical review board ethical from an utilitarian standpoint? - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Comments (23)
It is quite stable to say that we should never use the Precautionary Principle because the principle is logically inconsistent, precisely for this reason. This is stable because refusing to use the principle is not logically inconsistent.
Laughs I added the "internal inconsistency" part to the Wikipedia article ages ago. (2011, specifically)
I see that it has citations now; I didn't bother, as I was just annoyed with people who kept arguing against advancing technology and wanted to throw a thumbtack in one of their gears.
It's been weighed down with some unnecessary language (as some kind of compromise over an edit war, I assume) in addition to some citations, but the basic structure looks like it's still intact. The unnecessary language argues that the precautionary principle -isn't- logically inconsistent, by implying that the risks of the precautionary principle are both proximally known and calculable, but it takes half a brain cell to notice that the implication isn't supported or supportable.
I find the citation to State of Fear particularly amusing; it suggests the edit wars were a proxy battle from the climate change edit wars.
Wikipedia isn't about consistency, in fact their rules ban both original research and primary sources. It's about whatever can be found in secondary sources, which of course tend to be inconsistent.