Re:Airline industry divided over passenger electronics
by lawnchair_larry on Wednesday May 15, 2013 @05:21PM
(#5715026)
Well that's an interesting and seemingly arbitrary characterization.
You see, I did not need to know what he said in order to know that the rule didn't make sense (although I do appreciate the info). There are a few problems with your default position of "minimize risk because we don't know". If you don't know, how is it different from the 13th floor being bad luck? Something bad might happen if you visit that floor. To minimize risk, we should just avoid it?
Generally, the burden of proof has to be on whoever makes a claim that something exists. The existence of the rule is essentially that claim. The creation of the rule was not backed by any particular study or data. You speak dismissively of what you perceive to be speculation, yet that is entirely what the rule is based on (you also said not being afraid of these ghosts is the paranoid behavior, but I digress).
To introduce a little logic - we know that this has more than likely been tested. The fact that it's a concern at all means it's a safe bet that experiments have been done. If said experiments found anything at all that causes danger to a flight, it defies reason that they would not implement a hard ban on the devices and screen for them. There would be penalties and fines. Instead, a polite attendant asks that they be turned off. Does this make sense to you? It tells me that they aren't very serious about it. There is no way that anything potentially dangerous would be trusted to "the honor system".
Once a rule is in place, it's difficult to change it, so it remains the default. Wireless signals are the modern day version of ghosts. They might cause cancer, they might crash planes, they might microwave your lunch. Of course, we have no reason to believe that they do any of these things - we just don't have a reason to believe that they don't. As a scientist, it is your duty to reject this invalid line of reasoning.
You see, I did not need to know what he said in order to know that the rule didn't make sense (although I do appreciate the info). There are a few problems with your default position of "minimize risk because we don't know". If you don't know, how is it different from the 13th floor being bad luck? Something bad might happen if you visit that floor. To minimize risk, we should just avoid it?
Generally, the burden of proof has to be on whoever makes a claim that something exists. The existence of the rule is essentially that claim. The creation of the rule was not backed by any particular study or data. You speak dismissively of what you perceive to be speculation, yet that is entirely what the rule is based on (you also said not being afraid of these ghosts is the paranoid behavior, but I digress).
To introduce a little logic - we know that this has more than likely been tested. The fact that it's a concern at all means it's a safe bet that experiments have been done. If said experiments found anything at all that causes danger to a flight, it defies reason that they would not implement a hard ban on the devices and screen for them. There would be penalties and fines. Instead, a polite attendant asks that they be turned off. Does this make sense to you? It tells me that they aren't very serious about it. There is no way that anything potentially dangerous would be trusted to "the honor system".
Once a rule is in place, it's difficult to change it, so it remains the default. Wireless signals are the modern day version of ghosts. They might cause cancer, they might crash planes, they might microwave your lunch. Of course, we have no reason to believe that they do any of these things - we just don't have a reason to believe that they don't. As a scientist, it is your duty to reject this invalid line of reasoning.