Aug 25, 2017 · 1 min read
Sometimes when the evidence is not clear one needs to make a Pascal’s wager based decision. For example, using Roundup on food crops and/or just placing it into the environment may not be harmful but if the current interpretation of the evidence turns out to be incorrect the down side is disastrous. The same could be said for climate change, GMO crops, nuclear power, species preservation, etc. Our ability to know what to measure and / or what we have the ability to measure is always limited so environmental, public health, and medical decisions need to be made based on weighing the potential benefits vs potential losses.
