= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChristianKl comments on Is our continued existence evidence that Mutually Assured Destruction worked? - Less Wrong Discussion
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)
Comments (67)
No, it doesn't.
People understand very well that they can't draw valid conclusion from experiments with few measurements in domains where it's possible to make a lot of measurements.
They usually don't understand that the same is true with nuclear war. One observation of a strategy working doesn't provide evidence that the strategy works.
If I would tell you that I started doing Forex trading and I turned 100$ into 150$ in a few days, you would think that I'm a good Forex trader even if I could prove to you that I really turned 100$ into 150$ and those were the only Forex trades I did in my life. It would not rational for you to give me your money to invest on your behalf.
If your data set has only one observation it doesn't provide much evidence. That's what the core of the anthropic principle is about.
"If your data set has only one observation it doesn't provide much evidence. That's what the core of the anthropic principle is about." No, the anthropic principle is a bout selection bias.
If everyone who does Forex trading reports the results on the internet, then when I see someone reporting that they made money doing Forex, I should update my confidence that Forex trading is profitable. But if only people who make money in Forex report their results, then my update should be much smaller when I see someone reporting that they made money.
Side note: Chrome spell checker flags "anthropic" but not "Forex". I find that sad.