A scientist can tell you the costs and benefits of each political choice that you can make. But which of those is more important is not about the facts
-
-
Show this thread
-
It's actually somewhat impossible to have "evidence-based' policymaking, what we're really aiming for is "evidence-INFORMED" policies
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
there are only very little facts in science...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I will say that decision theory is useful to illustrate this since it decomposes it into: probability of an event & the utility. The probability can be informed by science (wouldn't call it FACTS though) & the utility function will always be a value judgement
-
The probability of the event is also founded on value judgements, take a Bayesian prior or simply the choice of loss function or target parameter, just the domain from which the value is elicited may be more or less fraught So it's turtles all the way down
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Couldn’t agree more. Data is information. It does not tell you what to do with that information. Only your values can.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@rutihersh apropos “”common sense””Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Welcome to the world inhabited also by
@BallouxFrancois :-) For that matter, one more issue is that as soon as one deals with more than one figure of merit, and there are trade-offs, it is essentially impossible to properly define an optimum to achieve.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
True, but value judgements also exist in the world of science
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.