Re:Science without Validation in a World without Meaning
by jbay808 on Wednesday June 03, 2020 @02:24PM
(#23406851)
If I start putting some stuff into your tapwater, or into the air around your house, and you feel convinced it's going to cause you harm, but I insist that it's perfectly safe, what standard of proof do you think you should have to put together to stop me from doing that? And what would need to constitute harm?
If it didn't hurt humans but just insects that you're fond of, or just the ozone layer that protects you from radiation, or just the climate that you've come to enjoy, what standard of proof is needed?
Neither of these policies were imposed by government. They were conventions that naturally evolved without any top-level policy being dictated, because they are obvious ways of solving an obvious coordination problem about using roads, and only got codified in law after that natural process of evolution had taken place.
> in general you should only need the preponderance of evidence to suggest that a public policy change will do more good than harm in order to adopt it
Even this standard, while it is weaker than the one I have suggested for what is needed to dictate public policy to everyone, is still strong enough to exclude many public policies that are currently in force, or suggested.