“His is a well-respected mind.”
“You think so? I read his paper you were all so excited about. It had serious flaws.”
“No one said it was perfect, but the main argument seemed airtight to me.”
“No. He neglected to take into account institutional precautions. There is a non-zero probability that any particular activity will result in a zero death outcome.”
“I think he covered that.”
“If you call dismissing something covering that something, then sure, he covered it.”
“He never said that there weren’t activities which would not lead to participant death. What he said was that at a certain level of complexity, there would have to be at least one death.”
“But he never defined that level. That’s the big flaw.”
“Only if you want something outside of the scope of the paper. What he proved
