Jiro comments on Is Sunk Cost Fallacy a Fallacy? - Less Wrong

19 Post author: gwern 04 February 2012 04:33AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (80)
Tags: economics decision standard_biases rationality

Comments (80)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Jiro 03 November 2014 05:12:18PM -1 points [-]

I covered that:

Saying that costs and side effects are too great means that costs and side effects are too great for the benefit you get. If there is some probability that the study is bad and there is no benefit, that gets factored into this comparison; the greater the probability that the study is bad, the more the costs and side effects tip the balance against getting the treatment.

Comment author: Strange7 03 November 2014 07:33:50PM 1 point [-]

If there was some non-negligible probability that the study was bad, RationalWiki would, given their dislike for chiropractics, have seized upon that and discussed it explicitly, would they not?

Comment author: Jiro 07 November 2014 09:39:59PM 0 points [-]

They describe the Cochrane study as "weak evidence" that chiropractic is as effective as other therapy. This implicitly includes some non-negligible probability that the benefit is less than the study seems to say it is.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit