MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
On a thread about speeding through roadworks, yourguitarhero said
They introduced a 20mph limit across most of Edinburgh... Supposedly road casualties have gone down 25% since it was introduced though a causal link hasn’t been proven.
Now, my question is: should we always have to show a causal link when instinct tells us that an action should have a positive effect? I mean, while it is probably true that nuances could be thrown up by closer analysis of the data, the fact is that it is reasonable to believe in the broad benefits of a lower urban speed limit.
But there are so many other instances where I think instinct should trump precision. So, for example, during the Apartheid era, when right-wing politicians were refusing to impose sanctions on SA, saying that they would hurt the people that most needed the support, Desmond Tutu who was in SA on the ground and who knew the plight of the people, was begging the world to impose sanctions. Of course he was no economist, but surely his instincts were right that sanctions would have had a psychological impact on those behind the corrupt system?
Anyway, there are countless examples - and I know precision is absolutely vital at times and with regard to certain types of questions - but I do think that sometimes the call for absolute proof of causal links can be a cop-out for those who love the status quo.
Thoughts?
None..
should we always have to show a causal link when instinct tells us that an action should have a positive effect?
Mostly yes, because instinct , either individual or collective, tends to be massively subjective.
I have a 7 month old cockapoo puppy. My instinct tell me that I should let her run about off the lead and let her enthusiastically jump about as many people as she can because I know in my heart that everyone loves puppies and that my actions will have a hugely positive effect on the world by spreading puppy-joy throughout the populace.
Objectively, this is not actually the case. Many people actually despise dogs, even cute puppies. Many people are afraid of dogs, or allergic. I can't comprehend any of these negative viewpoints because I'm just wired up to be a dog lover.
Yeah, but perchy, if, after you've let your dog off the lead, loads of people hate you - would this be because your dog jumped all over them, or just something they would've done anyway...?
Extreme weather events due to climatic change due to CO2 emissions. But as there isn't absolute proof next to nothing is done to reduce emissions and some countries officially remain in denial.
Yeah, but perchy, if, after you’ve let your dog off the lead, loads of people hate you – would this be because your dog jumped all over them, or just something they would’ve done anyway…?
I assumed they hated me anyway, even before I left the house.
It's a natural instinct that most people have. A causal link to my actual personality has yet to be proven.
I agree with you, perchy, but also with Edukator. What he said regarding climate change is an example I was thinking about but forgot to mention. Had the nations just listened when such environmental concerns were first being floated, things would not seem so hopeless/urgent today. Meanwhile, the worst that would have happened had people listened and the science been wrong, is that we would have consumed less.
The big tobacco companies in the 70s and 80s, and the NRA today, are both guilty of tying up progress in the rhetoric of 'no [I]proven[/I] link'.