Friends, let us build a list of historical cases of “scientistic sucker problems” (similar to, say, transfat, thalidomide) that satisfy the following:
A – DENIAL OF COMPLEXITY: Something foreign to the human body or nature-as-a-complex-system was introduced (in the sense of not being part of the long term history of the process),
B – Benefits (though small) were visible and trumpeted,
C -MISTAKING ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE FOR EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE: “Scientific” *evidence of absence* of harm was presented. (Consider tobacco).
D – SCIENTISM: Arguments against skeptics were presented a la Michael Shermer as being “against science”.
E – MORAL HAZARD: consider tobacco’s lobbying to show safety on “scientific” grounds.
These cases of small visible benefits and large hidden harm (particularly delayed) are prime cases of fragility (thick left tail, thin right tail).
The aim is to integrate these human sucker problems into the general *precautionary principle*. In the complex domain, one cannot predict adverse consequences beyond small steps, hence the idea of countering history (Bar Yam).
Please do not stray from the topic, which is to build a historical list, in the physical/health (not socioeconomic) domain. This is not a debate: rather a catalogue.
Friends, let us build a list of historical cases… – Nassim Nicholas Taleb.