No point theorycrafting what shutdowns in the US would accomplish or who are suggesting them. There will be no more widespread lockdowns. Full stop. This has been clear for the last 6 months plus.
5 Likes
This has been clear since May '20 at the latest.
1 Like
IMO, Michigan should fully shut down and everyone in MI should get an extra 1k stimulus, immediately deposited directly into their Pokerstars account.
13 Likes
So far, most people in this forum are on Team Steak-umm.
Hereâs a free (kindel) 2020 collection of papers on the general topic of scientific knowledge/truth from the standpoint of perspectival realism or liberal naturalism (in hiliary putnamâs phrase) or poetic naturalism (sean carroll).
Itâs not only science popularisers or Steak-ums who think about this stuff. Itâs pretty popular among philosophers.
This open access book â as the title suggests â explores some of the historical roots and epistemological ramifications of perspectivism. Perspectivism has recently emerged in philosophy of science as an interesting new position in the debate between scientific realism and anti-realism. But there is a lot more to perspectivism than discussions in philosophy of science so far have suggested. Perspectivism is a much broader view that emphasizes how our knowledge (in particular our scientific knowledge of nature) is situated; it is always from a human vantage point (as opposed to some Nagelian âview from nowhereâ). This edited collection brings together a diverse team of established and early career scholars across a variety of fields (from the history of philosophy to epistemology and philosophy of science). The resulting nine essays trace some of the seminal ideas of perspectivism back to Kant, Nietzsche, the American Pragmatists, and Putnam, while the second part of the book tackles issues concerning the relation between perspectivism, relativism, and standpoint theories, and the implications of perspectivism for epistemological debates about veritism, epistemic normativity and the foundations of human knowledge.
2 Likes
Am third person to report 2nd dose (Pfizer) today. CVS in hood north of long beach, 1:30 appt, 3rd in line for the one nurse. There were about 8 people in the 15 minute wait area. Nurse said they give about 120 shots a day.
Iâm hoping, pace simon and garfunkel, that there will be a place where the vaccinated people go. Gonna try to reenter the world and hope some places are accomodating. Wish vaccine passports were a thing.
I took a photo of my card to have on my phone.
Should note that i was feeling a little woozy after the shot, may have been psychosomatic or the lingering effects of a breakfast burrito. Feeling fine now after watching a solid documentary on the Go-Gos.
8 Likes
Seems like this J&J thing is just a standard variation of the trolley problem.
How is this different from relativism?
Thatâs not really a conflicting conclusion. Youâre going to get heavily varying transmission rates in intrafamily settings based on the circumstances of the household (for example, families in Wuhan presumably live in vastly more crowded accommodation than families in Iceland). The point of the Iceland study, by the way, is that it used random regular testing rather than contact tracing, which is subject to systematic errors of the sort weâve previously discussed. Thatâs why I give it more weight.
I think itâs worth noting that in the Eckard study your objection is, OK, known cases among students were infrequently transmitted to others, but what if thereâs a big lake of unknown asymptomatic infections out there? But when you lay eyes on this UF study, this is immediately thrown out the window and your contention switches to, actually children ARE very unlikely to get infected, but if infected they DO pass it on to others. These are polar-opposite theories.
To me the data tell a fairly consistent story: children are unlikely to get COVID and unlikely to pass it on in public settings. In intrafamily settings, how much kids pass it on is a bit more of an open question and it likely depends on the circumstances of the families. (The Princeton study from India is the only other one Iâm aware of which had children passing the virus on as much as adults, and that was also a contact-tracing study in mostly household settings in a developing country).
What I sincerely donât get about you and others who voted âstrong evidence of reduced transmission among kids but less evidence of reduced outbreaks in schoolsâ is that like, if you buy that kids get COVID less and pass it on less, then stuff like the Eckard study and the study from France are just the natural consequence of this. But your reaction is to craft speculative theories about how maybe the studies are wrong rather than be like âwell this makes sense, this corroborates what we already know about kids and COVIDâ.
US community spread has been absurd for much of the last year. There is a lot of room for kids to pass COVID on less than than the general community and still be pretty destructive.
1 Like
So what do you think? Remote only instruction until what criteria is met? I generally agree that in person is going to kill some kids, some teachers, and some parents. But what I donât think anyone has a good handle on is how to know when it is âok enoughâ again.
We call that the awval problem.
It allows for the truth of statements like âthe chair is on top of the tableâ which canât be reduced to scientific theory. Itâs maybe slightly akin to relativism, in that tables could be called chairs or vice verse, or that a culture isnât inherently wrong to call both the same thing, but the impetus is to have an accurate account of truth that accepts that most categories humans use to describe the world are contingent, not only functionally/pragmatically/culturally (ie, there are no rigorous truth conditions for most human categories) but as beings who experience the universe in a certain contingent way (eg, who perceive a certain portion of the electromagnetic spectrum as color). It does not say that truth is contingent or relative, it seeks a grounded account of truth that can deal with complexity.
1 Like
I need the high concept version. Does this work?
Realism: there is one truth
Perspectivism: there are multiple truths
Relativism: there are no truths
I donât like the term âperspectivismâ as used above. I think perspectival realism is more accurate, as ârealismâ tends to denote anti-relativist views. From the three choices above, Iâd say perspectival realism is between realism and âperspectivismâ characterised as âthere are multiple truthsâ, in that perspectival realism defines truth as relative to a conceptual scheme or pragmatic/linguistic context or what have you, which are the vast majority of terms/concepts about which we make truth claims (âfreeways are often jammed after people get off workâ).
Comparing linguistic or cultural communities, âSnow is whiteâ can be true or false, as can be âschnee ist weissâ, even if germans have a slightly different conception of snow.
Or, with respect to standard science:
Perspectival realism1 is best described as a cluster of views in philosophy of science
committed to both the existence of mind-independent things and to the historical and
cultural situatedness of scientific knowledge (Massimi 2018a). The first is the realist
commitment, whilst the latter is the perspectivalist commitment. Perspectival realists
react against both objective realism and social constructivism. Perspectival realists
take issue with the objective realistsâ tendency to formulate complete and objectively
true images of the world. For example, for the objectivist realist, scientific claims
such as âHIV is a virus that damages the immune systemâ, âWhales are mammalsâ or
âThe electron has spin halfâ are objectively true claims about the mind-independent
world. From the perspectival realistâs viewpoint, such claims, though they are about
mind-independent entities such as HIV, whales, and electrons, cannot be objectively
true, but only perspectively true. That is, such claims can be ârelative to a perspectiveâ (Giere 2006b, 81), âguides to an independently operating worldâ (Teller2011, 471), or âtrue across scientific perspectivesâ (Massimi 2018a, 357), but not true simpliciter. Thus, the perspectival realist denies the epistemological commitment of the objectivist realist according to which the scientific enterprise can produce an ultimate, objectively true picture of the world.Perspectival realists also take issue with the social constructivists portrayal of science as the product of social interactions and institutions and not as the product
of interactions with a mind-independent world. Though perspectival realists admit
that science is subject to some degree of contingency, they are also committed to
mind-independent things. Cashing out the nature of this commitment is one of the
main problems of perspectival realism. Perspectival realists share with social constructivists the commitment to epistemic pluralism, the idea that there are multiple
ways of acquiring knowledge about the world and multiple different descriptions of
mind-independent entities, none of which are objectively true. The commitment to
epistemic pluralism seems to be incompatible with the realist commitment, a tension
which will be explored in subsequent sections.
2 Likes
Out of an abundance of caution, Kaiser Permanente is pausing use of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine as recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The CDC and FDA called for this pause as they review data on 6 reported U.S. cases, involving women between the ages of 18 and 48, of a rare and severe type of blood clot among the 6.8 million people who have received the J&J vaccine. We expect this pause to decrease vaccine supply and the number of vaccine appointments we can offer. Weâll continue to monitor guidance from federal and state health officials.