I am confused why you are interpreting Jim to be making such a narrow claim?
I’m responding to the literal content of Jim’s comment, specifically and in detail. What more do you want from me? To read his mind? I supply multiple links with historic context deep diving into Jim’s casual one liner, and somehow I’m the problematic one in this conversation?
Separately, sure, if you are happy to bet at 20:1 odds, my $1k against your $20k, same resolution criteria as the Polymarket. It seems like you think the probability is much lower.
I do think the probability is much lower. But I frankly just do not want to bet with you or others here. It legitimizes more of what I find disturbing, which is the use of betting and prediction markets as a prime source of epistemic authority. It also signs me up for spending time negotiating bet logistics and resolution criteria, both now and in 7 months. That seems unappealing. What I find particularly irritating is the notion that that once a bet is proposed, it obviates a facts-and-logic based argument and undermines the credibility of the person turning down the bet. And that is what turns my “no” into a “HELL NO.”
What I would prefer is for you and others to consider the fact that a wide array of epidemiologists is currently in the news, saying, all with one voice, “this is not going to become a pandemic.” You can look into the personal history of the people making these claims. You can think about the difference between one expert making a claim that’s immediately contradicted by her peers vs. all the relevant experts in the media making the same statement, across a variety of institutions. You can read their scientific evidence and rationale. You can read what we know about Andes virus.
All those actions would teach you more about this virus and enable you to make a facts and logic based argument on the subject and derive your own number, if you need one in order to help make decisions.
If you feel like it, you can donate to a charity of your choice if it turns out that there’s no pandemic. If there’s a pandemic and I’m wrong, I’ll freely and openly confess to having been wildly overconfident.
Unfortunately the WHO’s top epidemiologist was also the WHO’s lead during the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, where she proved untrustworthy.
And then you said:
The specific statement you’re referring to:
And I just don’t know why you think Jim is referring to this specific statement. Like, maybe it’s obvious from context, but it isn’t obvious to me.
I feel kind of confused on your other points. I agree that I could spend hours trying to weigh expert consensus and read about the details myself. I don’t want to. The prediction markets are telling me how likely it is. The prediction markets are generally well-calibrated. I don’t need to research more. Everything is good. You said that because the WHO top epidemiologist said it’s not going to be a pandemic I should stop worrying. That seems very dumb to me, and I don’t really think you believe it (clearly you yourself wouldn’t stop worrying based on it, you would at least check what other experts say and whether they disagree).
I’m responding to the literal content of Jim’s comment, specifically and in detail. What more do you want from me? To read his mind? I supply multiple links with historic context deep diving into Jim’s casual one liner, and somehow I’m the problematic one in this conversation?
I do think the probability is much lower. But I frankly just do not want to bet with you or others here. It legitimizes more of what I find disturbing, which is the use of betting and prediction markets as a prime source of epistemic authority. It also signs me up for spending time negotiating bet logistics and resolution criteria, both now and in 7 months. That seems unappealing. What I find particularly irritating is the notion that that once a bet is proposed, it obviates a facts-and-logic based argument and undermines the credibility of the person turning down the bet. And that is what turns my “no” into a “HELL NO.”
What I would prefer is for you and others to consider the fact that a wide array of epidemiologists is currently in the news, saying, all with one voice, “this is not going to become a pandemic.” You can look into the personal history of the people making these claims. You can think about the difference between one expert making a claim that’s immediately contradicted by her peers vs. all the relevant experts in the media making the same statement, across a variety of institutions. You can read their scientific evidence and rationale. You can read what we know about Andes virus.
All those actions would teach you more about this virus and enable you to make a facts and logic based argument on the subject and derive your own number, if you need one in order to help make decisions.
If you feel like it, you can donate to a charity of your choice if it turns out that there’s no pandemic. If there’s a pandemic and I’m wrong, I’ll freely and openly confess to having been wildly overconfident.
Maybe I am being dense here, but Jim said:
And then you said:
And I just don’t know why you think Jim is referring to this specific statement. Like, maybe it’s obvious from context, but it isn’t obvious to me.
I feel kind of confused on your other points. I agree that I could spend hours trying to weigh expert consensus and read about the details myself. I don’t want to. The prediction markets are telling me how likely it is. The prediction markets are generally well-calibrated. I don’t need to research more. Everything is good. You said that because the WHO top epidemiologist said it’s not going to be a pandemic I should stop worrying. That seems very dumb to me, and I don’t really think you believe it (clearly you yourself wouldn’t stop worrying based on it, you would at least check what other experts say and whether they disagree).