SSC’s argument that the dermatologists’ factual claims are wrong are the least of the problems. Even if the dermatologists really are experts at skin cancer, they aren’t expert at the trade-offs.
On the other hand, if SSC is correct, that only eliminates one option that shminux gave. It doesn’t necessarily reject the claim that you should stay out of certain sun conditions.
figure out what was going on rather than desperately trying to multiply and divide all the numbers in the problem by one another.
That one hits home. I’ve been doing a bit of math lately, nothing too hard, just some derivatives/limits, and I’ve found myself spending inordinate amounts of time trying taking derivatives and do random algebra. Just generally flailing around hoping to hit the right strategy instead pausing to think first: “How should this imply that?” or “What does this suggest?” before doing rote algebra.
No, that’s not what social proof means. I’m saying a throwaway comment by a non-expert has very little probative value. Now, I’d give it more weight if Scott were actually to write a post about this topic concluding that we should all stop wearing sunscreen, because knowing him there probably would be some serious thought and research put into that. But the post you linked to basically says “it’s more complicated than you might think, but the consensus is still wear sunscreen.”
That seems like a reason not to make a recommendation until someone trusted has done a proper lit review, not a reason to make an affirmative recommendation based on an old consensus with momentum behind it despite the glaringly obvious cultural and incentive problems that make the consensus likely to ignore new evidence.
Why shouldn’t I believe Slate Star Codex’s argument?
SSC’s argument that the dermatologists’ factual claims are wrong are the least of the problems. Even if the dermatologists really are experts at skin cancer, they aren’t expert at the trade-offs.
On the other hand, if SSC is correct, that only eliminates one option that shminux gave. It doesn’t necessarily reject the claim that you should stay out of certain sun conditions.
That was a great read.
That one hits home. I’ve been doing a bit of math lately, nothing too hard, just some derivatives/limits, and I’ve found myself spending inordinate amounts of time trying taking derivatives and do random algebra. Just generally flailing around hoping to hit the right strategy instead pausing to think first: “How should this imply that?” or “What does this suggest?” before doing rote algebra.
Well, weigh a throwaway comment by Scott against the consensus of dermatologists and skin cancer specialists.
So, social proof?
No, that’s not what social proof means. I’m saying a throwaway comment by a non-expert has very little probative value. Now, I’d give it more weight if Scott were actually to write a post about this topic concluding that we should all stop wearing sunscreen, because knowing him there probably would be some serious thought and research put into that. But the post you linked to basically says “it’s more complicated than you might think, but the consensus is still wear sunscreen.”
That seems like a reason not to make a recommendation until someone trusted has done a proper lit review, not a reason to make an affirmative recommendation based on an old consensus with momentum behind it despite the glaringly obvious cultural and incentive problems that make the consensus likely to ignore new evidence.