= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Emily comments on Fallacies as weak Bayesian evidence - LessWrong
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 (41)
Paragraph 1 is quite largely a repeat of the abstract in more cutesy terms. I found it somewhat annoying to read the latter right after the former. (I liked the article in general.)
Good point.
Scientific papers are usually written with a structure where the abstract and actual text are independent of each other, i.e. the paper doesn't presume that you've read the abstract and often ends up repeating some of its content in the introduction. I imitated that structure out of habit, but I'm not sure whether it's a good structure to use for blog posts.
It didn't bother me. Though this may just be beacause I'm already habituated to ignoring it after having read many journal articles.