= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Miller comments on Help Fund Lukeprog at SIAI - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (276)
(That quote is commonly used by Science and is technically inaccurate under Bayes, in case you were wondering.)
Can we be forgiving and assume that multiple anecdotes fail because they have a consistent bias related to how they are obtained?
Sure, and I regularly do ("Well, if situation X seems like it would produce anecdote Y, then all anecdote Y shows us is that situation X happened, not that contention Z is necessarily true - only if situation X shows us that contention Z is true").
I would surmise that not all commentors are willing to be that forgiving.