The quoted claim that I responded to was the claim that "it's never too early to know". Any my claim was made in relation to the hypothetical scenario that I spelled out, where it was not specified that the individual in question was sick.
I think you think I'm changing what I'm saying because you're still making the quantifier scope error. If you read through my comments paying more careful attention to the quantifier scope, you'll see that I've been saying the same thing consistently. I can only make sense of your responses if they are objections to "for all x, you're better off not knowing x", rather than to what I actually said. This misunderstanding is evident from several of your first comments. E.g. "Your hypothetical includes every illness and thus, cancer", and "This unambiguously refers to the list in its entirety." These replies only makes sense if you imagine that I'm saying that you don't want to know anything on the list. But this simply isn't what I said. Or at least, it's the least plausible interpretation of my original comment, and inconsistent with the explanations I've repeatedly made of what I meant.
I don't know why you are so reluctant to accept this. Early in this thread I politely pointed out the quantifier scope error in your interpretation. And the wrong interpretation that you insist on attributing to me has me saying something implausibly ridiculous (i.e. that all medical tests are bad!) Go back to my examples (A) and (B) earlier. Do you have difficulty understanding that (A) does not entail (B)? I doubt it. So why is it difficult for your to understand my claim about the list? I'm baffled.
The pie analogy is a good one. Every piece of the pie is nutritious and worth eating (let's say). Similarly, every item on the unrealistically comprehensive list of medical information may be useful in and of itself. But just like you can have more pie than is good for you, you can have more information about future problems and risks than is good for you.
I think you think I'm changing what I'm saying because you're still making the quantifier scope error. If you read through my comments paying more careful attention to the quantifier scope, you'll see that I've been saying the same thing consistently. I can only make sense of your responses if they are objections to "for all x, you're better off not knowing x", rather than to what I actually said. This misunderstanding is evident from several of your first comments. E.g. "Your hypothetical includes every illness and thus, cancer", and "This unambiguously refers to the list in its entirety." These replies only makes sense if you imagine that I'm saying that you don't want to know anything on the list. But this simply isn't what I said. Or at least, it's the least plausible interpretation of my original comment, and inconsistent with the explanations I've repeatedly made of what I meant.
I don't know why you are so reluctant to accept this. Early in this thread I politely pointed out the quantifier scope error in your interpretation. And the wrong interpretation that you insist on attributing to me has me saying something implausibly ridiculous (i.e. that all medical tests are bad!) Go back to my examples (A) and (B) earlier. Do you have difficulty understanding that (A) does not entail (B)? I doubt it. So why is it difficult for your to understand my claim about the list? I'm baffled.
The pie analogy is a good one. Every piece of the pie is nutritious and worth eating (let's say). Similarly, every item on the unrealistically comprehensive list of medical information may be useful in and of itself. But just like you can have more pie than is good for you, you can have more information about future problems and risks than is good for you.