Very interesting and somewhat worrying article. Whereas the first two problems seem like they could have been avoided, the third one seems difficult to overcome due to the complexity involved. Do you think that collecting more data would be a solution to better understand the problem? Or should we maybe take a 'precautionary approach'? Saying that even if we do not have all the information available, the possibility of a bad outcome should lead us to limit certain activities? As you say, even the best models are not good enough. Coincidentally, I came across this story as well recently. It is covered in the documentary 'The End of the Line': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jmi4MGmKpn4
Indeed, we are unable to completely oversee complex systems, so there will always be a degree of irreducible uncertainty about outcomes and a chance that catastrophic events occur. Similar to the answer of top economists to the question how nobody saw the 2007-2008 crash coming:
"Everyone seemed to be doing their own job properly on its own merit. And according to standard measures of success, they were often doing it well," they say. "The failure was to see how collectively this added up to a series of interconnected imbalances over which no single authority had jurisdiction." - https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/jul/26/monarchy-credit-crunch
So yes, the answer is to take more caution, but also to rely less on models. What's the alternative? Perhaps to give more credence to intuition in our decision-making. If you had asked old-school fishermen in Newfoundland what they thought of giant trawlers ripping up the ocean floor, they would have probably had the sense that it's a bad idea. Or am I being too romantic here?
Lovely to read! I think this metafore is helpfull to understand the complexity of research on public mental health.
Very interesting and somewhat worrying article. Whereas the first two problems seem like they could have been avoided, the third one seems difficult to overcome due to the complexity involved. Do you think that collecting more data would be a solution to better understand the problem? Or should we maybe take a 'precautionary approach'? Saying that even if we do not have all the information available, the possibility of a bad outcome should lead us to limit certain activities? As you say, even the best models are not good enough. Coincidentally, I came across this story as well recently. It is covered in the documentary 'The End of the Line': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jmi4MGmKpn4
Indeed, we are unable to completely oversee complex systems, so there will always be a degree of irreducible uncertainty about outcomes and a chance that catastrophic events occur. Similar to the answer of top economists to the question how nobody saw the 2007-2008 crash coming:
"Everyone seemed to be doing their own job properly on its own merit. And according to standard measures of success, they were often doing it well," they say. "The failure was to see how collectively this added up to a series of interconnected imbalances over which no single authority had jurisdiction." - https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/jul/26/monarchy-credit-crunch
So yes, the answer is to take more caution, but also to rely less on models. What's the alternative? Perhaps to give more credence to intuition in our decision-making. If you had asked old-school fishermen in Newfoundland what they thought of giant trawlers ripping up the ocean floor, they would have probably had the sense that it's a bad idea. Or am I being too romantic here?