Question

...
MTK

All done!

I lost 100 pounds, so I don’t need to diet anymore. (Analogous to: Social distancing flattened the curve. We don’t need to do social distancing anymore.)

asked on Wednesday, May 27, 2020 05:53:09 PM by MTK

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Reason: Books I & II

This book is based on the first five years of The Dr. Bo Show, where Bo takes a critical thinking-, reason-, and science-based approach to issues that matter with the goal of educating and entertaining. Every chapter in the book explores a different aspect of reason by using a real-world issue or example.

Part one is about how science works even when the public thinks it doesn't. Part two will certainly ruffle some feathers by offering a reason- and science-based perspective on issues where political correctness has gone awry. Part three provides some data-driven advice for your health and well-being. Part four looks at human behavior and how we can better navigate our social worlds. In part five we put on our skeptical goggles and critically examine a few commonly-held beliefs. In the final section, we look at a few ways how we all can make the world a better place.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

...
Bo Bennett, PhD
1

It depends.

When someone diets, they have a calorie restriction to lose weight. When the goal is reached, they should relax the restriction so they stop losing weight and add calories to maintain their goal weight. Do we consider the new calorie level still a "diet?" I don't know.

Social distancing can be the similar if the behaviors to flatten the curve initially are like a severe calorie restriction, then when we reached the goal (what ever that is), we can "add more calories."

So the goal of social distancing and curve flattening needs to be defined. The problem I see, is that it went from "preventing local healthcare resources from being overloaded" to "reduce cases to zero" by some standards.

answered on Wednesday, May 27, 2020 06:11:09 PM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
0
MTK writes:

Thanks for the response! After looking at your comments,  I need to clarify, as I think I’m confusing two different arguments. 

One is: “I did it (dietIng, social distancing), and reached a goal, and now I don’t need to do it anymore.” (Understanding that once a goal is reached we can lighten up, but that doesn’t mean packing concert halls or eating at buffets every day.)

The other is: “I did it (dieting, social distancing), and achieved a goal (lost weight, reduced deaths from COVID), but the reason the goals were achieved were from something else (not dieting or social distancing).”

Also to clarify, I don’t think I’ve heard anyone saying the goal of social distancing is to “reduce cases to zero.” The issue is the effectiveness of social distancing at reducing transmission, which some are denying, which was the argument I was attempting to articulate.

posted on Thursday, May 28, 2020 07:16:35 AM
...
0
Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To MTK]

Argument #1: Correct, "ease up" needs to be defined and of course, this is on a spectrum. Either extreme would not be reasonable.

Argument #2: Here we need to move away from "reason" or "cause" and see it more as contributing factors. For example, we can lose weight by both diet and exercise. It would be inaccurate to say that diet was the reason we lost weight if it was only a contributing factor, that is, contributed partly to losing weight. Likewise, we cannot say that lockdowns were the reason for the decreased numbers if there were other reasons. We can say "primary reason," if the data supports that. It is a good rule of thumb to speak in terms of contributing factors over reasons to avoid these false binary arguments.

Also to clarify, I don’t think I’ve heard anyone saying the goal of social distancing is to 'reduce cases to zero.'

I hear this quite frequently in some form or another. The argument is, as long as social distancing, wearing masks, etc. is saving lives, we should keep doing it. People do want to reduce transmission, but reduce to what before we can remove restrictions? This is the debate. Again, it is very important to see this terms of a continuum rather than a simplistic issue of opening back up or staying locked down.

[ login to reply ] posted on Thursday, May 28, 2020 08:40:36 AM
...
0
MTK writes:

So could the arguments be committing either false dichotomy or single cause fallacies?

posted on Thursday, May 28, 2020 09:24:16 AM
...
0
Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To MTK]

Both are possible, depending how how they are worded.

[ login to reply ] posted on Thursday, May 28, 2020 09:38:33 AM