Again, this is post hoc reasoning conjured upon observing the exact particulars of his death
Actually I don't know the exact particulars of the death. But I do agree with what I think is your basic point here -- it's extremely easy to make these sorts of connections with the benefit of hindsight and that ease might be coloring my analysis. At the same time, I do think that -- in fairness -- the death is pretty high on the 'suspicious' scale so I stand by my earlier claim.
My calculation addresses a major part of the Bayesian calculation:
Perhaps, but it seems to me you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater a bit here by ignoring the facts which make this death quite a bit more 'suspicious' than other deaths of men in that age range. More importantly, you don't seem to dispute that your calculation doesn't really address my claim.
Look, I agree with your basic point -- the premature death of a diet guru, per se, doesn't say much about the efficacy or danger of the diet guru's philosophy. No calculation is necessary to convince me.
More importantly, you don't seem to dispute that your calculation doesn't really address my claim.
I did dispute that:
My calculation addresses a major part of the Bayesian calculation...that sharply limits how much could ever be inferred from observing [Roberts] dying.
(A simple countermeasure to avoid biasing yourself with anecdotes: spend time reading in proportion to sample size. So you're allowed to spend 10 minutes reading about Roberts's 1 death if you then spend 17 hours repeatedly re-reading a study on how fat consumption did not predict increased mortality in a sample of 100 men.)
You know the drill - If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.
And, while this is an accidental exception, future open threads should start on Mondays until further notice.