We can say from an epidemiological viewpoint which path has which benefits and costs, but ultimately the decision of which is more beneficial is not scientific
-
-
Show this thread
-
Some people have consistently argued that freedom is the most important value This is a valid ethical viewpoint! Epidemiologically, we can perhaps place a cost on that ideation, but whether this cost is justified is not a scientific decision
Show this thread -
For example, were lockdowns a good idea? Basically impossible to answer, depends on your perspective Did lockdowns cause or prevent death? That's something that we can look at scientifically (still complex)
Show this thread -
(As for many things, the answer to the question of whether lockdowns caused or prevented deaths appears to be, somewhat unsatisfyingly, "it depends")
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That's a bit neat though? Robert Oppenheimer thought that before they built the bomb. And the opposite after they used it. Scientific facts exist within a framework of values, there's no escaping that.
-
Sure, but application of ethics based on science is a question of...ethics, which scientists aren’t experts in.
- Show replies
New conversation -
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.