D&D and the rising pandemic

[CleverNickName]

4,100 people died from Covid-19 in America yesterday alone. That makes it the second-deadliest singe day in America...I think only the Galveston Hurricane beats it, and probably not for long.
...
Also in America alone, over a quarter-million new cases were reported yesterday as well (260,973). This is the highest number of cases reported in a single day here. Of any virus, ever.

America broke both of these records again yesterday (4,207 dead and 279,154 new cases in America.) On a list of the Top Ten Deadliest Days in America, eight of them are from Covid-19. The surprise attack on Pearl Harbor doesn't even make the top 20 anymore.

Still no new policies have been implemented, and there has been no new guidance from our leaders.

 

[NotAYakk]

So, now we get into the difference between logic and being rational/reasonable.

Absolute, pure, unadulterated Vulcan logic has few places in modern life, for one simple reasons - logic ultimately requires you to know the actual (and absolute) values of variables. If you include so much as a rounding error in pure logic, the thing can fall apart. We lack such complete knowledge of our universe, so pure logic is denied us in most practical matters. It is a Star Trek fiction.

I can do logic on things when I don't require the actual and absolute values of variables.

You draw different conclusions based on that fact than you could with the actual and absolute values of variables.

Spoiler

To digress...

Hell -- Constructive Analysis | E. Bishop | Springer -- here is a branch of mathematics where we do away with the law of excluded middle and a few other axioms, and we get a pretty good argument that all provable theorems also produce what they claim exists.

Due to the restrictions on the operations we are allowed to do, there are things you cannot prove in this branch that you could prove in more classical analysis, like the intermediate value theorem.

In classical analysis, if you have a continuous function defined on a closed interval such that it is less than 0 at the start, and greater than 0 at the end, we can prove that there is a point in the middle where its value is 0.

In the above constructive analysis we cannot prove it; instead, we can prove that for any non-zero window of precision we want, we can find an value between the start and the end that maps at least that close to 0.

Here we have a version of formal analysis that embraces and accepts imprecision and the limits of our ability to reason about infinities concretely. Now, while it is a "fun" read, it turns out some mad science physicist types have gone off and used it to form an alternative construction of relativistic models of the big bang and generated an irreversible arrow of time from it, which is neat; basically, there isn't enough room in the universe early on for the arrow of time to go backwards into it. Pop sci version: Does Time Really Flow? New Clues Come From a Century-Old Approach to Math.

In any case, yes, Spock isn't what I'm talking about.

It is possible to do logical rational reasoning based off incomplete and error prone data. It is just hard.

Formal logic is insanely easier; the difference is that formal logic there is some hope of spotting errors. Because of that, they actually attempt to avoid errors. And people working in relatively formal logic still use heuristics rather than actually provably correct steps, except as an academic exercise by logicians (and occassionally such exercises find errors in arguments).

In comparison, in everyday reasoning, errors in deduction are basically impossible to eliminate; beyond that, the raw amount of state it takes to reason about a non-trivial conjecture is so ridiculously huge that if you think you are reasoning without pencil and paper, you aren't; you are (again) applying heuristics. If it is an area of expertise, you are probably using heuristics to reduce the complexity of the problem down to what your experience has told you are relevant details; if it isn't, you are using heuristics to reduce the complexity of the problem down to irrelevant details.

We can, however, be reasonable. Being reasonable is being fairly logical, but with some boundaries around what inputs and results you accept to handle the fact that logic isn't everything.

It is very, very easy to come to a reasonable conclusion about vaccination, while Fermat's Last Theorem is very difficult.

Naw, Fermat's Last Theorem is easy to have a reasonable conclusion about. It remains a bunch of symbols on the page.

It is plausible to actually check and have expertise in knowing if the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is valid, and for that expertise in turn to be objectively and clearly checked. I mean, I haven't done that, but I think I know how hard it is to find out if someone is blathering nonsense about mathematics (my technique involves a ladder of trust basically).

Spoiler

On the subject of vaccination; hell, on the subject of "does the sun come up tomorrow" -- that is so insanely hard to have expertise on it isn't funny, compared to formal mathematics.

Math is only hard because it is so easy, we have built insane constructs on it, and those insane constructs keep on seeming to generate interesting truths.

So we don't even try. We hand wave heuristics around. Some more hand wavey than others.

I use a heuristic that people who are expert epidemiologists probably aren't clueless about epidemiology. Also, that there are going to be better statisticians than me looking at the papers involved. When I run into statistical claims in popular media about anti virus effectiveness, I do napkin math to see if they are plausible; if I find a mistake, I'll iterate on the assumption that the communication was fuzzy.

Does that work? I don't know. I haven't build a model of if my napkin math is worth the credibility I put in it (I probably lack the expertise to know if I'm a statistical idiot, most people do; heuristically, I have evidence I am not, but again... I know I have been an idiot about subjects I didn't think I was an idiot on in the past, so why presume I'm not an idiot today?)

Down that infinite regress, I just drop it (unless I feel bored). Why? Heuristics. I wasted time on that kind of iteration before.

 

[Garthanos]

never mind that ;p

 

[Eltab]

America broke both of these records again yesterday (4,207 dead and 279,154 new cases in America.) On a list of the Top Ten Deadliest Days in America, eight of them are from Covid-19. The surprise attack on Pearl Harbor doesn't even make the top 20 anymore.

Still no new policies have been implemented, and there has been no new guidance from our leaders.

in the US, there currently is nobody from whom the bureaucracy will accept orders if given (this has been true since Election Day). So we run on autopilot for another two weeks.

 

[Umbran]

I can do logic on things when I don't require the actual and absolute values of variables.

Now you are just contradicting yourself.

First, the best one can do is rationalize. But now you can do logic. Your discussion is not cogent or consistent, so I'm not going to engage with it further. Have a good weekend.

 

[NotAYakk]

I can do logic. I can do symbol manipulation, check proofs, and with low fidelity and lots of effort connect those symbols to things in the world.

But I can't live my life rationally, because rational decision making is insanely expensive.

You have to use heristics and habits to determine your actions, both immediatly and in aggregate.

And anyone thinking they are making their decisions rationally is fooling themselves. At best they can produce rationalizations for their actions, and adapt their actions when convinced by rational sounding arguments.

I don't see the contradiction. My issue is that the problem is intractible; I don't believe anyone is that smart.

Maybe I'm wrong and all of these people claiming to be "rational" are actually amazingly smarter than I can understand.

More likely they are using "rational" to mean something I am not. So my model is that they have heuristics and habits and beliefs and an ability to rationalize, and a self image that they are "rational" so when confronted with arguments framed as "rational" feel they should be persuaded by them.

And they call that "being rational".

But I could be wrong.

 

[Imaculata]

I think being rational just means you are willing to listen to the arguments of others with an open mind, and are willing to move on your position if the arguments are strong enough. A rational person in my view, is someone who is willing to change their mind, and admit that their previously helt beliefs were wrong. They are a person not completely entrenched in their opinion, and open to logic.

Of course even a rational person can be convinced by irrational or flawed arguments.

 

[ccs]

But I could be wrong.

You most definitely are.

 

[Eltab]

I think being rational just means you are willing to listen to the arguments of others with an open mind, and are willing to move on your position if the arguments are strong enough. A rational person in my view, is someone who is willing to change their mind, and admit that their previously helt beliefs were wrong. They are a person not completely entrenched in their opinion, and open to logic.

Of course even a rational person can be convinced by irrational or flawed arguments.

And a rational person will go check claims made in an argument against the state of the real world.
Claim 1 "The sky is blue"
Claim 2 "The sky is grey"
Rational "Let's look out a window."

 

[Thomas Shey]

Of course it helps if you can get to a window.