You interpret the OKCupid article as saying (and I agree) that older women, because they test for STDs more frequently, are less likely to have undetected STDs.
But although the conclusion is correct, the argument is fallacious. Consider the following analogous argument: “Don’t want a boyfriend with prostate cancer? You should date an old man! After all, old men get tested for prostate cancer all the time, but young men almost never get tested for prostate cancer at all. Therefore, old men are less likely to have undetected prostate cancer.”
We can’t directly reason from one population being tested more often to that population having lower undetected levels of the disease. Doing so is a logical fallacy, and knb was exactly right to point this out, here on this site about avoiding logical fallacies. He didn’t simultaneously point out that the same applies to someone fallaciously saying men who test for STDs must have fewer STDs, because no one posted a link to an article claiming exactly that.
This is an uncharitable interpretation of knb’s post and the tone is extraordinarily nasty for this site.
Your analogy is not at all applicable. According to the American Cancer Society, men should start considering getting a prostate exam at age 50. Therefore if a 23 year old male is NOT getting a prostate exam, then he is doing exactly the right thing and still has a low risk of prostate cancer.
However, adults of ANY age who are sexually active (again, excluding monogamy, if you want), SHOULD be getting tested for STDs. Therefore if a sexually active 23 year-old female is not getting tested for STDs then she is NOT behaving responsibly, and has a much higher risk of having an STD than the older female, who has had more partners, but is tested regularly.
You’re disputing a contingent aspect of the analogy that isn’t related to the problem with the OKCupid article.
To establish that “older people get tested more → older people have less undetected disease”, you first have to establish that older people started out with the same base rate of disease as younger people. The OKCupid article doesn’t do that, and knb is correctly calling them out on it.
I agree that younger people in fact have higher STD rates than older people, but OKCupid makes a fallacious argument for this, and it is acceptable in philosophy to criticize fallacious arguments for true conclusions.
Well, that’s just nitpicking. The implicit assumption (that young women aren’t much less likely a priori than old women to have STDs) is so uncontroversial that it’s not such a fatal mistake to not make it explicit. For that matter, it doesn’t make explicit the assumption that ceteris paribus people would prefer not to have STDs, either.
Also, if you think the logic isn’t strong enough on its own, here are statistics from the CDC:
Young people (age 15-24) have FOUR TIMES the rate of chlamydia and gonorrhea than the general population. Syphillis, however, is more likely in adults age 20-44.
The CDC also recommends testing all sexually active women <26 for chlamydia, every year.
Note that I specifically said above that the OKCupid essay’s “conclusion is correct.” You’re confusing criticizing an argument form and criticizing a conclusion. Consider the following exchange:
Person A: Karl Marx was an evil person, therefore communism is wrong.
Person B: That’s an example of the ad hominem fallacy, and so an invalid argument.
Person A: How dare you say communism wasn’t wrong, you Stalinist pig!
Posting statistics about exactly how many people were killed in communist regimes does not make A’s argument valid, or B’s criticism wrong.
I’m no expert, but I think the STDs to be most concerned with those are those which are least treatable. Wikipedia says the ones you cite are bacterial, so I presume, completely destroyed by antibiotics.
So, viruses like HIV and herpes? And maybe HPV?
(still, perhaps the treatable STDs have already done some lasting damage by the time they’re detected, anti-bacterials may be harmful, and it’s still gross, so use condoms)
You interpret the OKCupid article as saying (and I agree) that older women, because they test for STDs more frequently, are less likely to have undetected STDs.
But although the conclusion is correct, the argument is fallacious. Consider the following analogous argument: “Don’t want a boyfriend with prostate cancer? You should date an old man! After all, old men get tested for prostate cancer all the time, but young men almost never get tested for prostate cancer at all. Therefore, old men are less likely to have undetected prostate cancer.”
We can’t directly reason from one population being tested more often to that population having lower undetected levels of the disease. Doing so is a logical fallacy, and knb was exactly right to point this out, here on this site about avoiding logical fallacies. He didn’t simultaneously point out that the same applies to someone fallaciously saying men who test for STDs must have fewer STDs, because no one posted a link to an article claiming exactly that.
This is an uncharitable interpretation of knb’s post and the tone is extraordinarily nasty for this site.
Your analogy is not at all applicable. According to the American Cancer Society, men should start considering getting a prostate exam at age 50. Therefore if a 23 year old male is NOT getting a prostate exam, then he is doing exactly the right thing and still has a low risk of prostate cancer.
However, adults of ANY age who are sexually active (again, excluding monogamy, if you want), SHOULD be getting tested for STDs. Therefore if a sexually active 23 year-old female is not getting tested for STDs then she is NOT behaving responsibly, and has a much higher risk of having an STD than the older female, who has had more partners, but is tested regularly.
tl;dr- Base rates
You’re disputing a contingent aspect of the analogy that isn’t related to the problem with the OKCupid article.
To establish that “older people get tested more → older people have less undetected disease”, you first have to establish that older people started out with the same base rate of disease as younger people. The OKCupid article doesn’t do that, and knb is correctly calling them out on it.
I agree that younger people in fact have higher STD rates than older people, but OKCupid makes a fallacious argument for this, and it is acceptable in philosophy to criticize fallacious arguments for true conclusions.
Well, that’s just nitpicking. The implicit assumption (that young women aren’t much less likely a priori than old women to have STDs) is so uncontroversial that it’s not such a fatal mistake to not make it explicit. For that matter, it doesn’t make explicit the assumption that ceteris paribus people would prefer not to have STDs, either.
Also, if you think the logic isn’t strong enough on its own, here are statistics from the CDC:
Young people (age 15-24) have FOUR TIMES the rate of chlamydia and gonorrhea than the general population. Syphillis, however, is more likely in adults age 20-44.
The CDC also recommends testing all sexually active women <26 for chlamydia, every year.
Note that I specifically said above that the OKCupid essay’s “conclusion is correct.” You’re confusing criticizing an argument form and criticizing a conclusion. Consider the following exchange:
Person A: Karl Marx was an evil person, therefore communism is wrong.
Person B: That’s an example of the ad hominem fallacy, and so an invalid argument.
Person A: How dare you say communism wasn’t wrong, you Stalinist pig!
Posting statistics about exactly how many people were killed in communist regimes does not make A’s argument valid, or B’s criticism wrong.
I’m no expert, but I think the STDs to be most concerned with those are those which are least treatable. Wikipedia says the ones you cite are bacterial, so I presume, completely destroyed by antibiotics.
So, viruses like HIV and herpes? And maybe HPV?
(still, perhaps the treatable STDs have already done some lasting damage by the time they’re detected, anti-bacterials may be harmful, and it’s still gross, so use condoms)