Overview for JustinMElms

In response to comment by DanArmak on Rationality when Insulated from Evidence

Comment author: ChristianKl 01 July 2016 01:50:58PM 2 points [-]

And, as you point out, generalizing and regulating all GMOs as a group makes no more sense than regulating all pesticides as a group.

I wouldn't have a problem if we distinguish GMOs into different classes and put the resulting class on the label.

But I can't think offhand of any examples, other than GMOs, where the legal status is "you may do X, but you have to label it appropriately".

That's not really true. Ingredient lists require the disclose of many substances that are added to new foods. People have a right to know whether their food contains aspartame.

Examples of things that don't require labeling: which pesticides and antibiotics were used, and in what amounts; what diseases and parasites may have been present; what the storage and transportation conditions were.

I would also support requiring big producers to provide that information. Products could have a barcode that can be scanned and the information could be provided via the internet.

Permalink

In response to comment by ChristianKl on Rationality when Insulated from Evidence

Comment author: JustinMElms 01 July 2016 02:03:43PM 2 points [-]

Certainly, I agree: there is no reason that we shouldn't be able to know every detail about the materials and processes that go into our food, but surely you acknowledge the connotative difference between:

"Scan this to see all relevant information"

and

"Governmental authority mandates that we declare this food to contain GMO"

Permalink

load more comments (1 reply)

In response to Rationality when Insulated from Evidence

Comment author: Elo 29 June 2016 04:15:30PM -2 points [-]

Quick option: Look for other forms of agents you trust. Friends you can outsource some of the research to. Public figures who you can have confidence in their ideas.

I hit the same problem when trying to work out climate change circa 15 years ago. Both sides were quoting different results from the same data sources. I had no idea who to trust.

In the end of that particular problem I decided that it didn't matter to the extent that it would affect my life either way.

In this case - Can you trust the local regulatory authorities to maintain your interest enough to keep you safe insofar as you can eat anything that hits the shelves but maybe not that new experimental kickstarter-soylent-product (for now).

Also worth pointing out for this instance only: GMO has been around for ~10-20 years now. We are yet to see negatives of the scale predicted by the opposition to GMO. Waiting long enough has yielded evidence of absence of risk.

Other options that come to mind: Have you tried bayesian updates? Write down your original position, stack information on each side and see how strongly you update each way. Then decide if that is enough for you.

(3) Can you devise a test or experiment for the beliefs that you want to hold. Obviously you don't have the rigour or the time to prove or disprove the risks associated with GMO on your own. But maybe there is something you can do on your own. Even finding a test-able premise, then reading papers relating to it. Is better than nothing.

Permalink

In response to comment by Elo on Rationality when Insulated from Evidence

Comment author: JustinMElms 30 June 2016 07:55:16PM 1 point [-]

Thanks for weighing in, Elo. I have learned from this that sometimes providing a concrete example for an abstract problem can be so distracting as to almost completely obscure the problem.

Have you tried bayesian updates?

Yes, this has been the crux of my difficulty. I have done my best to follow Bayes Theorem, my prior probability is not a strong factor (I would not be exceptionally shocked one way or the other on this particular issue, so I put my prior probability at 60% for one side), and when I get to evidence updates, I basically only have two decent pieces of evidence "Scientific organizations X, Y, and Z (of C credibility) hold this position" and "Scientific organization A and B (of D credibility) hold this other position." And then I have "The argumentation for this position is more flawed than this other position."

That seems to be just about as far as I can get, insulated from direct observation or--as you recommend--experimentation. So I am able to calculate my posterior probability and have some confidence in my approach, but I can't help but feel unsatisfied about the scope of evidence that brought me to change my position.

Also:

GMO has been around for ~10-20 years now. We are yet to see negatives of the scale predicted by the opposition to GMO. Waiting long enough has yielded evidence of absence of risk.

That is strong evidence that GMO does not have observable risks within 10-20 years of adoption, but it is considerably weaker evidence about what GMO adoption looks like after 30, 40, 50 years or a lifetime.

Permalink

load more comments (1 reply)

Rationality when Insulated from Evidence

3 JustinMElms 29 June 2016 04:03PM

Basically: How does one pursue the truth when direct engagement with evidence is infeasible?

I came to this question while discussing GMO labeling. In this case I am obviously not in a position to experiment for myself, but furthermore: I do not have the time to build up the bank of background understanding to engage vigorously with the study results themselves. I can look at them with a decent secondary education's understanding of experimental method, genetics, and biology, but that is the extent of it.

In this situation I usually find myself reduced to weighing the proclamations of authorities:

I review aggregations of authority from one side and then the other--because finding a truly unbiased source for contentious issues is always a challenge, and usually says more about the biases of whoever is anointing the source "unbiased."
Once I have reviewed the authorities, I do at least some due diligence on each authority so that I can modulate my confidence if a particular authority is often considered partisan on an issue. This too can present a bias spiral checking for bias in the source pillorying the authority as partisan ad infinitum.
Once I have some known degree of confidence in the authorities of both sides, I can form some level of confidence in a statement like: "I am ~x% confident that the scientific consensus is on Y's side" or "I am ~Z% confident that there is not scientific consensus on Y"

Once that establishes a baseline on an issue, I am able to do some argumentation analysis to see what arguments each side has that simply should not be included in the discussion. This is usually irrelevant appeals (e.g.: In the GMO labeling debate, "It must be better because it's more natural") or corollary citations that are screened off by evidence closer to the source (e.g.: In the GMO labeling debate, "X many countries require GMO labeling" should be screened off by looking at the evidence that led to that decision).

After that, I find myself with a rather unfulfilling meta-assessment of an issue. I fear that I am asking for a non-existent shortcut around the hard solution of: "If an answer is important to you, do the necessary learning to at least be able to engage directly with the evidence," but I will ask anyway: does anyone else have strategies for seeking the truth while insulated from direct evidence?

Comments (60)

CC Licenced

In response to comment by thomblake on Dark Side Epistemology

Comment author: Vaniver 19 April 2012 07:35:00PM 4 points [-]

Too late - it's been 3 and a half years.

Somewhat amusing, but it should not be surprising that most of the commentary on old sequence posts is people reading them and engaging with the ideas for the first time.