You're right but you miss the point about how people generally perceive danger - that is mainly in emotional, not rational way.
As you point out, science is bad at proving negatives. It is also very good at introducing new unknowns. Combine those two, and you may understand why sometimes people get so emotionally distressed about some new use of science.
And if you develop this thought even further, then you may find that healthy level of skepticism about some new technology is actually not so irrational, considering many unknowns it opens up.
Sometimes -- depending on the person -- you can respond to their emotional fear in a rational way, and it'll take their edge off a bit. :-)
If "cool-RR" had been hysterical, instead of asking questions and appearing at least somewhat curious, I wouldn't've bothered commenting.
And, I agree wholeheartedly that a healthy level of skepticism about new technology isn't a bad idea. Our opinions on what constitutes "healthy" may differ, though.
Comments
You're right but you miss the point about how people generally perceive danger - that is mainly in emotional, not rational way.
As you point out, science is bad at proving negatives. It is also very good at introducing new unknowns. Combine those two, and you may understand why sometimes people get so emotionally distressed about some new use of science.
And if you develop this thought even further, then you may find that healthy level of skepticism about some new technology is actually not so irrational, considering many unknowns it opens up.
Sometimes -- depending on the person -- you can respond to their emotional fear in a rational way, and it'll take their edge off a bit. :-)
If "cool-RR" had been hysterical, instead of asking questions and appearing at least somewhat curious, I wouldn't've bothered commenting.
And, I agree wholeheartedly that a healthy level of skepticism about new technology isn't a bad idea. Our opinions on what constitutes "healthy" may differ, though.