= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RichardKennaway comments on Review: Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids - 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 (257)
That isn't an actual example, and there are many more ways of being shoddy than merely a limited sample size.
This presumes explicitly that they are not, and tacitly that they are all independent, have not all come to the same conclusion for the same bad reasons. These are very substantial presumptions and need substantial justification to make such a meta-analysis worth anything at all. The presumption that one would have to be a "fool" to be wrong about something is just rhetorical spin.
100 pieces of crap is still just a pile of crap, however you spin it.
"Give me an example! ... Ha! Your example isn't a fully general enumeration of the entire class... Fooled you!!"
Your example wasn't an example at all, just a made-up scenario of many small pieces of evidence adding up to large evidence. You originally said
(emphasis mine.) When asked to back that up, you just made stuff up.