Critical Thinking and Pandemics VII: Forecast Fallacy

In the Pandemic Covid-19, some politicians argued that America had to be reopened again because severe predictions about Covid are wrong. In the face of this, it seems to be a good reason we can use in the next pandes: if things are not as bad as it is predicted, we can start opening again before planned. To use an analogy, a fire predicts the destruction of your house, but he burned only your garage, then it would make sense to move the garage again and rebuild the garage. Although this reasoning is attractive, it can also be a trap. Here is how the trap works.

Some politicians and wells indicated that there were no serious predictions about Covid. For example, the Governor of Florida said that hospitals did not announce that they had not announced, it was a good idea to return to the optional profitable option. Also, like other Republican governments, they wanted to open very quickly. This reasoning seemed reasonable: the pandemic was not as bad as it was advertised, so we can quickly open it. There were also those who sucked in lo go and excessive predictions were angry. This seems to make sense: experts planned a terrible result for Covid-19, but they were wrong. We should react and retreat when the predictions did not take place. But would the next pandemic strategy be wise?

Although they are reasonable, consider whether the measures are too excessive, it should be avoided the tempting fall. This is the fallacy forecast. Someone occurs whenever predictions of this prediction denies predictions and answers to make the result of a prediction. The logic error occurs, people should be obvious: If a prediction is answered effectively, the announcement will be “wrong.” The form of falzia is:

1. Premise: Prediction p predict if we don’t make x

2. Premise: The answer is taken according to the prediction.

3. Premise: X Don’t happen, so the prediction is the wrong P.

Conclusion: We wouldn’t answer r (or we don’t need to answer r).

To use a concrete example:

1. Premise: Experts predicted that Florida hospitals would be overwhelmed, if we did not respond to social separation and other measures.

2. Premise: People responded to that prediction with social separation and other measures.

3. Premise: Florida hospitals did not overcome, so the prediction was wrong.

Conclusion: The answer was excessive, and we no longer need these prevention.

It is true that a wrong prediction is incorrect, without verifying that the error is notified, it is inferred that this is not proven that the prediction should be taken (or we do not need to respond in this way in this way). We don’t take the prediction that we don’t respond (or doesn’t answer a particular way) and the answer is to deal with prediction. If the answer is effective, the planned result would not happen and that’s the point of answering. Because of the “failures” of the forecast, the answer was wrong or it would not be a mistake in reasoning. It could be right; But you have to do more than a failed prediction.

As a fool but effective analogy, imagine that we are being taken to an abyss. If we do forecast, we will go from the abyss and we will die. So I turn on the wheel and avoid the abyss. If the deck is angry with Billy and say that the wheel was not reasonable, because we do not die in a passionate explosion, because we are falling in billy. After all, if we didn’t turn around, we would die. And if we come back soon, we die.

The same applied to Covid-19: causing serious predictions, we have changed the result and the predictions have been wrong. But that the answers should be excessive or should now stop, because the results were not as serious as it would be a mistake.

It’s not that not to deny it, it’s true: it is possible to reactivate to pandemia. Decisions based on the fall of the prediction is a bad idea. There is also another version of this fallacy.

A variation of this fallacy involves happening to happen to be bad:

1. Premise: Prediction p predict if we don’t make x

2. Premise: The answer is taken according to the prediction.

3. Premise: X did not happen.

Conclusion: The announcement was wrong if we didn’t have R.

The announcement was incorrect, in the sense that the planned result did not occur, this does not condemnation X Announcement that will happen without response. Returning to the car analogue, if we would run away from the abyss, it does not turn we turned around, if we turn around, and then we don’t die. In fact, that’s the result we want.

Returning to Covid-19, the predictions on what might happen are nothing, because they didn’t do something. So if these predictions had to be wrong, it was not planned to be an error. Of course, we rationally evaluate the results, but this evaluation should not be answered by considering the impact of the response. It is difficult to order such predictions. In complex cases we will never happen to prove what would happen, but good methods can guide us here, which is why we need to go with science and math, rather than hunting and feelings.

This income achieves great strength from psychological factors, especially in the case of Covid-19. The answer was given to the virus has been a great cost and we wanted things to return to normal, so Ironically, the success of the response made us feel that we could not feel quickly or that we didn’t need any response. As always, bad reasoning can cause bad consequences and in a pandemic can hurt and many people can also kill.

Be safe and see you in the future.