3 ms·

> In statistical terms, these dismissals are little more than a call for overfitting - if I can arbitrarily add more dimensions to a theory, I can make it fit a

by Olscore 11y ago

> In statistical terms, these dismissals are little more than a call for overfitting - if I can arbitrarily add more dimensions to a theory, I can make it fit any data set. Sure. However, this leads me to believe it is statistics that are the problem, and not nuance. You are in my opinion admitting that nuance invalidates most statistics, or at least allows for heavy manipulation of the statistics to fit any narrative. This is precisely why public policy should not be made using statistics. Society should not be likened to a turing machine. People, history and so many topics of discussion are full of nuance, detail and perspective; and disregarding nuance (or perspectives) is insulting to the truth.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
No, on the contrary I'm saying that calls for nuance are often excuses to do bad statistics and bad science. Rather than throwing away our theories because they predict X and the world does Y, they instead say "actually the theory only applies under vague unspecified circumstances which you'd understand if you were as nuanced as I". Whether or not the theory fits the data, they cry "intersectionality" or "humans are so complex". In any case, your post begs the question. If we should ignore statistics, how should we make decisions? Emotionally pleasing verbal narratives? See also the related essay, "Pragmatism is Poison". It argues that the word "pragmatism" is used in software a lot to shut down discussion of bad choices, much the same way "nuance" is used to shut down discussion of good theories. https://einarwh.wordpress.com/2016/03/10/pragmatism-is-poison/ https://einarwh.wordpress.com/2016/03/10/pragmatism-is-poiso...
- platz 11y ago
  No true scottsman will allow their theory to be critiqued. A true scottsman is more nuanced.
- pron 11y ago
  > I'm saying that calls for nuance are often excuses to do bad statistics and bad science. Absolutely. But at least as often, calls for nuance are calls for better statistics and better science. How do you know which is which? Judgement. You can only say "fuck nuance" once you've demonstrated good judgment.

by Olscore 11y ago

yummyfajitas 11y ago

No, on the contrary I'm saying that calls for nuance are often excuses to do bad statistics and bad science. Rather than throwing away our theories because they predict X and the world does Y, they instead say "actually the theory only applies under vague unspecified circumstances which you'd understand if you were as nuanced as I". Whether or not the theory fits the data, they cry "intersectionality" or "humans are so complex". In any case, your post begs the question. If we should ignore statistics, how should we make decisions? Emotionally pleasing verbal narratives? See also the related essay, "Pragmatism is Poison". It argues that the word "pragmatism" is used in software a lot to shut down discussion of bad choices, much the same way "nuance" is used to shut down discussion of good theories. https://einarwh.wordpress.com/2016/03/10/pragmatism-is-poison/ https://einarwh.wordpress.com/2016/03/10/pragmatism-is-poiso...

platz 11y ago
No true scottsman will allow their theory to be critiqued. A true scottsman is more nuanced.
pron 11y ago
> I'm saying that calls for nuance are often excuses to do bad statistics and bad science. Absolutely. But at least as often, calls for nuance are calls for better statistics and better science. How do you know which is which? Judgement. You can only say "fuck nuance" once you've demonstrated good judgment.