Do you fire Laviolette? (Philadelphia Daily News article dated March 12, 2013)
View Single Post
01-31-2013, 11:56 PM
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Norristown, PA
Originally Posted by
Stats...well...I won't completely discourage them. But they still should be extremely discouraged. What they amount to is an online person's wish to win an argument, gets questioned, then provides "concrete" evidence to "prove" whatever he's talking about.
It's very weak and while I'd like it if people would grow up and stop it, that won't happen. In fact I'm sure it will only get worse. Much, much, much worse.
We're already seeing this lazy awfulness in thinking in 9/11 conspiracy debates.
"Oh yeah, well PROVE that they didn't die from thermite paint! Prove it! I posted my article, now where's yours!?"
I don't get when people have serious aversions to using stats. Otherwise people just rely on their memories, which are usually nowhere near as good as they think they are, and confirmation bias often comes into play. Stats are just documentation of things that actually happened. Not what you think you remember happening.
Discounting stats is usually just a way of maintaining a belief despite having no evidence to support it and, often, plenty of evidence against it.
View Public Profile
zarley zelepukin's albums
Find More Posts by zarley zelepukin