When discussing the uneven geographical impact of coronavirus, remember that the more elaborate an explanation you give, the weaker it is. I see this fallacy a lot. The complexity makes it sound more true to the storytelling ear, but it is a symptom of ignorance, not knowledge.
-
-
Think about it like curve-fitting. The more parameters you add, the more closely you can fit any set of data points. Does that mean you understand it better? The namesake explanation for malaria was much more subtle and nuanced than the humble truth.
Show this thread -
In the history of human infectious diseases, no one ever lost a lot of money betting on simple etiology.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
you must be on some greater plane of covid discourse cos idk that i even see that question being raised amidst all the confident pontificating
-
i feel like even how weird the viruses’ symptoms are hasn’t fully sunk in the covid discourse i’m exposed to
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
This is an odd thing to say. It is about chance on one level, as it is determined by whether infection occurs, and whether it flourishes. Sensitive dependence on initial conditions. We don't know - we have to look for natural experiments and controls are not there.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I understand (and agree) with that. What I'm referring to is people who promulgate a theory and then dismiss exceptions to it as random chance events.
End of conversation
-
-
-
Has simulation ever been of value for anything? Especially when there are many parameters, changes in assumptions, and the like?
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.