Re: Republicans think destroying UAW is worth a depression

In article <3ck4l.7488$sC4.4110@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@xxxxxxx> wrote:

"David Friedman" <ddfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
In article <d6i4l.47$em5.1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@xxxxxxx> wrote:

"Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:gipq3s$9ue$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Karl Johanson <karljohanson@xxxxxxx> wrote:
"Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
*Shoe stores* used to have X-ray machines. It's just as well that
they no longer do, since X-rays are dangerous.

X-rays above a certain dose are dangerous.

Nobody knows whether the risk is linear with the dose, or whether
there's some perfectly safe non-zero dose. The risk from a single
exposure is small, but in case it's not zero it makes sense to only
undergo an X-ray when the benefits exceed the highest plausible
likelihood of risk.

That's only true if there's more evidence that low doses are bad for you
than good for you.

It's false even then.

Suppose you think the risk might be 1 unit or might be 100, and the
benefit is 90 units. Unless you think the odds of 100 are pretty high,
you are better off undergoing the X-ray.

Why should you act as if the "highest plausible" was certain to be the
case?

You aren't acting as if it's certain, just that it's the best course of
action when you have incomplete information.

To say that you shouldn't do it unless the payoff exceeds the loss in
the worst case means that you are acting as if the worst case were
certain. With any probability below certainty, expected loss is less
than that.

I wouldn't have expected Keith to be following in the footsteps of John
Rawls, whose similar claim has never made any sense at all to me.

If you step out your front door, you could get run over. So should you
never go out unless the payoff is worth being run over for? Would the
argument work if we substituted some more likely but still far from
certain adverse outcome--say being caught in a heavy rain?

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of
_Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
Cambridge University Press.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Republicans think destroying UAW is worth a depression
    ... Nobody knows whether the risk is linear with the dose, ... undergo an X-ray when the benefits exceed the highest plausible ... you are better off undergoing the X-ray. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)
  • Re: Republicans think destroying UAW is worth a depression
    ... Nobody knows whether the risk is linear with the dose, ... undergo an X-ray when the benefits exceed the highest plausible ... you are better off undergoing the X-ray. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)
  • Re: (NDC) Lamest Lawsuit EVER???
    ... potentially harmful, of course, and below a certain dose threshold the ... body can handle many potential assaults without harming the organism. ... Just as a single atom of uranium is still radioactive. ... risk" - a risk that one should be concerned about. ...
    (rec.music.gdead)
  • Re: Intensive Lipid Lowering with Atorvastatin
    ... the main reason was that there were increased cancer deaths in the ... >>patients getting the higher dose of statins. ... >>moderate risk patients using high dose atorvastatin. ... lower risk of a heart attack and a 25 percent lower risk of stroke. ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Re: Low Dose Lipitor & Zocor Triggered Muscle Pain - Whats Next?
    ... I really NEED an atherosclerosis risk reduction ... I am in the high risk category with four very old bypasses. ... >> dose in tiny increments however. ... >> someone who has been on other statins previously. ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)