At one point you say "he oh so carefully lets it slip that...it would only explain 15% of mental health effects" and you link to this blog: https://www.afterbabel.com/p/why-some-researchers-think-im-wrong. i've looked through that blog post and I just can't find what you're referring to. It's not so much that I don't believe you, but rather I can't seem to figure it out.
I was sorta shocked to see him make the argument that it's better to believe alarmists like him, because the consequences if they're wrong are supposedly low, versus the consequences if they're right are supposedly high. As soon as you admit that kind of reasoning, you can rationalize all sorts of absurd trade-offs. A radioactive gorilla is going to break into your house and eat your family tonight, unless you pay me $50 to prevent it. Look: the consequences if I'm wrong are small: you're out $50 for nothing. But the consequences if I'm right are too horrible to contemplate!
At one point you say "he oh so carefully lets it slip that...it would only explain 15% of mental health effects" and you link to this blog: https://www.afterbabel.com/p/why-some-researchers-think-im-wrong. i've looked through that blog post and I just can't find what you're referring to. It's not so much that I don't believe you, but rather I can't seem to figure it out.
I was sorta shocked to see him make the argument that it's better to believe alarmists like him, because the consequences if they're wrong are supposedly low, versus the consequences if they're right are supposedly high. As soon as you admit that kind of reasoning, you can rationalize all sorts of absurd trade-offs. A radioactive gorilla is going to break into your house and eat your family tonight, unless you pay me $50 to prevent it. Look: the consequences if I'm wrong are small: you're out $50 for nothing. But the consequences if I'm right are too horrible to contemplate!