I’m a huge fan of epistemological humility, but it seems odd to invoke it for a topic where the societal effects have been exhaustively studied for decades. The measurable harms and comparatively small benefits are as well known as you could reasonably expect for a medical subject.
Your counterargument seems to be that there are unmeasured benefits, as revealed by the fact that people choose to smoke despite knowing the harm it does. But I don’t think these are an epistemological mystery either: you can just ask people why they smoke and they’ll tell you.
It’s seems like this is more of a difference in values than a question of epistemics: one might regard the freedom to choose self-destructive habits as being an important principle worth defending.
fair points! I should have been explicit here but I was invoking epistemological humility primarily in response to SMA’s public statements about the tobacco industry which in my view do not seriously engage with the idea that tobacco use could be a free-but-harmful or free-and-beneficial choice for any consumers.
I would push back on the idea that the harm/benefit ratio to smoking is somehow ‘medically settled’. The fact that cigarettes greatly increase risk of lung cancer, say, is settled but for the harm/benefit ratio to be settled it would require us to be able to put the harm and benefit in comparable units; the correct procedure for which is, in my view, a epistemological mystery (the problem here seems similar to trying to get an unambiguous answer with health economics whether to go on a fun-but-risky rafting trip or a safe-but-boring trip to the mall).
I do believe the freedom to choose self-destructive habits is an important principle worth defending though I don’t think that claim is necessary for the more narrow point I was making in this post.
I would argue harms vs. benefits of tobacco are settled, to the point where we don’t really need further calculations. ITs implausable that a calculation could find the small potential psychological benefits would outweigh 10 years less life expectancy. This would require a 15%-20% ish continual wellbeing improvement from smoking which is impossible.…
The problem isn’t similar to a fun and risky rafting trip which might lower your life expectancy by a day or something.
If you are a libertarian and believe in Freedom to destroy yourself and others (second hand smoke) that’s a different argument.
I’m a huge fan of epistemological humility, but it seems odd to invoke it for a topic where the societal effects have been exhaustively studied for decades. The measurable harms and comparatively small benefits are as well known as you could reasonably expect for a medical subject.
Your counterargument seems to be that there are unmeasured benefits, as revealed by the fact that people choose to smoke despite knowing the harm it does. But I don’t think these are an epistemological mystery either: you can just ask people why they smoke and they’ll tell you.
It’s seems like this is more of a difference in values than a question of epistemics: one might regard the freedom to choose self-destructive habits as being an important principle worth defending.
fair points! I should have been explicit here but I was invoking epistemological humility primarily in response to SMA’s public statements about the tobacco industry which in my view do not seriously engage with the idea that tobacco use could be a free-but-harmful or free-and-beneficial choice for any consumers.
I would push back on the idea that the harm/benefit ratio to smoking is somehow ‘medically settled’. The fact that cigarettes greatly increase risk of lung cancer, say, is settled but for the harm/benefit ratio to be settled it would require us to be able to put the harm and benefit in comparable units; the correct procedure for which is, in my view, a epistemological mystery (the problem here seems similar to trying to get an unambiguous answer with health economics whether to go on a fun-but-risky rafting trip or a safe-but-boring trip to the mall).
I do believe the freedom to choose self-destructive habits is an important principle worth defending though I don’t think that claim is necessary for the more narrow point I was making in this post.
I would argue harms vs. benefits of tobacco are settled, to the point where we don’t really need further calculations. ITs implausable that a calculation could find the small potential psychological benefits would outweigh 10 years less life expectancy. This would require a 15%-20% ish continual wellbeing improvement from smoking which is impossible.…
The problem isn’t similar to a fun and risky rafting trip which might lower your life expectancy by a day or something.
If you are a libertarian and believe in Freedom to destroy yourself and others (second hand smoke) that’s a different argument.