As a lawyer, you should know it's pretty easy:
"Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results."
Quod erat demonstrandum.
How about we stop jailing people for cannabis possession and instead start putting behind the bars journalists, politicians and "scientists" that push the most obvious bullshit for money?
Assumes facts not in evidence. I think it's fair to say that some of the tribalism currently evident in social and political argument is expressed as a broad based distrust and disregard for science, but that doesn't seem to be based on any rational analysis or actual knowledge, but more on internally propagated mythology.
> I think it's fair to say that some of the tribalism currently evident in social and political argument is expressed as a broad based distrust and disregard for science, but that doesn't seem to be based on any rational analysis or actual knowledge, but more on internally propagated mythology.
You know that, I know that. People who are not really into science/tech don't know that. Most people know only what they hear on the news. And what they hear is that every single thing causes cancer - on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, because that same thing cures cancer on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays. What they hear is that their government panicks about some flu, buys shots, those shots are not used and then questions are asked, politicians lose seats, etc.
Add to that that almost every single company is out there to fuck you over (mom&pop are the worst, actually), there's shit ton of FUD in media about everything related to biology (GMOs, vaccines, drugs, etc.), and are you really going to tell me there is no loss of general trust in scientific establishment? Go ask your non-tech family members and friends.
But yeah, it's easier to just assume instead that all "those people" must be just stupid.
Assumes fact visible to the naked eye if you just go out and took to normal people.
Well, no, which was the point. Some normal people, absolutely. Others, not at all. To characterize this as "society" is inept. One of the problems with making sense of society as a concept is that these sort of generalizations tend to have little value as they occlude more than they illuminate.http://www.nbcnews.com/health/cancer/processed-meat-causes-c...
...you're so right it's painful. =/
- Just ignore the news; if Commonly Used Thing X was Actually Dangerous, you'd see people around you dying from cancer clearly tied to it.
- If you really have to go into it, demand to know actual values - not that something "causes cancer", but how it adjusts the probability, and then factor in the base probability. Something increasing cancer risk 100x may sound dangerous until you realize we're talking about increase from 0.00005% to 0.0005%, at which point you can, once again, just completely ignore it.