Quote:
Originally Posted by cjameshuff
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by galacsi
I don't know. There is the notion of risk. Probability not certitude. I think Warren posted about this.
|
And the (correct) response that was given was that as a general rule, absolute certainty of something being safe is impossible to achieve. The truth is, there are very few things that have been as thoroughly tested by nature as the safety of these collisions. You may as well worry about, say, apples proving to be deadly poison that kills millions tomorrow, the survival of everyone who's eaten them up to this point being a statistical fluke.
Warren, etc. are starting from the assumption of danger, and insisting on an impossible absolute proof of safety, a standard they selectively apply only to the LHC or any other things they have decided are dangerous. It is flat out impossible to satisfy their demands, and the only reason they have to apply them to the LHC is that it's big and highly visible. This is not critical thinking, it's fabrication of a cause. |
James, this is totally unfair. Besides, you know better than this because I know you've read my posts in this thread. I've never insisted on an
absolute standard of proof. I wrote this back on post #1333:
I've been accused by both swift and Celestial Mechanic [and now cjameshuff] of "demanding an impossible to achieve level of certitude" or "absolute proof" with regard to the safety of the LHC. This is not true, as I made clear about 20 pages ago, but apparently bears reiteration here.
I do not demand absolute certainty. We all agree that there is a nonzero probability that practically anything can happen.
On the other hand, we need a standard of proof that is more stringent than "beyond a reasonable doubt". That's because the risk is not merely hanging an innocent man. So I proposed a new standard of proof that might be called "reasonable certainty". We can be reasonably certain that a microwave oven or yours truly will not destroy the planet. All I want to see is an argument that makes a clear case that we can be reasonably certain that the LHC is as dangerous as a microwave oven. I do not see that yet. I don't think that case can be made without trying out the experiment and seeing what happens.
The consequences of being wrong are unacceptable.
The reason I insist on reasonable certainty is because "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not good enough--not when the very existence of Planet Earth is at stake. If you'll read the Wiki article on standards of proof, you'll find a study cited that juries convinced beyond a reasonable doubt were wrong up to 30% of the time. At the same time, I've studied enough philosophy to know that absolute certainty is a chimera. Therefore, we need a new standard of proof: what I and Dr. Plaga call "reasonable certainty".
Thus, when I get on a plane, I know "beyond a reasonable doubt", that I will make it to my destination in one piece. But I cannot say with a reasonable certainty that I will make it out alive.
Similarly, if I buy a Powerball Lotto ticket, I know beyond a reasonable doubt that I will lose; I cannot say with a reasonable certainty, however, that I will not win, because, after all, people do win those lotteries.
On the other hand, though I cannot say with a reasonable certainty that turning on a microwave oven will not catch fire and burn down my house (even though I know beyond a reasonable doubt that it will not catch fire), I can say with a reasonable certainty that turning on the microwave will not destroy the planet. However, I cannot be
absolutely certain that the microwave will not destroy the planet.
When our entire Home Planet is at stake, and all our lives, and all the lives of people who are not even born yet, we need a standard of reasonable certainty. To doubt the existence of Hawking radiation in just about any other context would be unreasonable doubting. After all, it was proposed by Steven Hawking who is rarely wrong--though he has some doozies under his belt.
But when Mother Earth herself is at stake, such unreasonable doubts must be fully weighed and considered. After all, there has been as of yet no empirical detection of Hawking radiation. Therefore, we cannot be reasonably certain that Hawking radiation does in fact exist--though beyond a reasonable doubt, such radiation must surely exist.
Do I make myself clear?