Man removed from UK flight over 'prayer' message on phone

[Maximus]

I don't think it is self-evident which option is "safe" and which is "sorry".

[Admiral Yi]

I don't think it is self-evident which option is "safe" and which is "sorry".

Obviously the safe option is more false positives and fewer false negatives.

[Maximus]

Edit: I don't agree that is obvious.

[Admiral Yi]

Edit: I don't agree that is obvious.

It's not readily apparent to you which has greater disutility, getting blown out of the sky, or having to book another flight?

[Eddie Teach]

Agree with Yi. "Safe" isn't always the better option, but it is the one with the smaller downside.

[The Brain]

I regularly talk about Odin on airplanes and I have yet to be thrown out.

[Maximus]

It's not readily apparent to you which has greater disutility, getting blown out of the sky, or having to book another flight?

I think that's a simplistic question. It would be helpful to consider the relative probabilities, secondary effects and other possible courses of action.

I think it is clear that a world where airplanes are blown out of the sky regulary and a world where people are regularly pulled off flights for spurious reasons are both worse than the world we live in. So I would argue that the optimal world would be somewhere between the two and which is safe and which is sorry depends on which side of the line you're on.

[Martinus]

garbon, Maximus, in your view, what level of probability should be sufficient for an airplane staff member to decide a passanger may pose a security risk and should be asked off a plane? "Beyond reasonable doubt", "reasonable doubt"? Should the test be objective or can it be subjective?

[Martinus]

It's not readily apparent to you which has greater disutility, getting blown out of the sky, or having to book another flight?

I think that's a simplistic question. It would be helpful to consider the relative probabilities, secondary effects and other possible courses of action.

I think it is clear that a world where airplanes are blown out of the sky regulary and a world where people are regularly pulled off flights for spurious reasons are both worse than the world we live in. So I would argue that the optimal world would be somewhere between the two and which is safe and which is sorry depends on which side of the line you're on.

Clearly both are not equivalent, though. So in your view, what would be the acceptable level for the trade off? How many passengers can be asked off a plane and have to catch a different plane to prevent a single plane blowing up for this to be acceptable in your view? 10? 100? 10000? A million?

[Admiral Yi]

I think that's a simplistic question.

It's the one you professed to respond to.  Better safe than sorry is a formulation about danger.  An innocent person being pulled off a plane experiences inconvenience, not danger.

[Martinus]

I think that's a simplistic question.

It's the one you professed to respond to.  Better safe than sorry is a formulation about danger.  An innocent person being pulled off a plane experiences inconvenience, not danger.

Yeah, it seems to me that Maximus is operating from the line of reasoning that would be appropriate if someone was advocating shooting these passengers on the spot - and not asking them off the plane and having them catch a separate plane with a full refund...

[Maximus]

garbon, Maximus, in your view, what level of probability should be sufficient for an airplane staff member to decide a passanger may pose a security risk and should be asked off a plane? "Beyond reasonable doubt", "reasonable doubt"? Should the test be objective or can it be subjective?

I don't have that answer. I was objecting to the bumper-sticker decision-making process, not the conclusion.

[Maximus]

It's the one you professed to respond to. 

It's the one I objected to.

An innocent person being pulled off a plane experiences inconvenience, not danger.

I suppose we could be arguing from different understandings of safety and danger. IMO, not all danger involves immediate violence or destruction.

[Maximus]

If your definition of safety is restricted to immedate physical danger, then I would disagree with the maxim "better safe than sorry".

[grumbler]

I think that's a simplistic question.

It's the one you professed to respond to.  Better safe than sorry is a formulation about danger.  An innocent person being pulled off a plane experiences inconvenience, not danger.

And if everyone is pulled off every plane, they will be safe from the dangers of flying.  This line of reasoning gets absurd, fast.

Now, if you can state a standard for the removal of people, there is something to debate.  But just "removal is better" isn't logically tenable, because that includes everyone.