4 ms·
>There's no reason to doubt representativeness of his sample. So the sample of programmers that he has known and observed over his life is unquestionably repre
by sofal 19y ago
>There's no reason to doubt representativeness of his sample.
So the sample of programmers that he has known and observed over his life is unquestionably representative?
>There's never a case where ad hominem is valid.
Are you saying that biases and potential biases of people have absolutely no relevance in any "valid" discussion, even in response to subjective observations about why people act the way they do?
>Occam's Razor suggests that PG works with startups because he thinks they're better, not that he thinks they're better because he works with them. He is rich enough to work on whatever he wants.
Are you suggesting that this makes PG completely free from bias?
>It's how evolution tells the organism, "keep doing what you're doing".
So happiness is just a reward we get from pursuing those things that will result in the propagation of our genes?
>Not everything that mentions nature is an appeal to nature.
Sure, but that's irrelevant. Gabe says PG's essay is an appeal to nature and backs it up. If you disagree, then please do the same.
- logjam 19y ago> Are you saying that biases and potential biases of people have absolutely no relevance in any "valid" discussion, even in response to subjective observations about why people act the way they do? They have absolutely NO relevance to the argument. Ad hominem is an error in logic. Bias has nothing to do with the argument. It is the argument we refute, not the person. Unfortunately, you It is utterly amazing to me people still argue about these errors in logic. One can only assume it is defensiveness. You might want to look up "straw man" as well. It's another logical fallacy, and you're using it.
- Hexstream 19y ago">There's no reason to doubt representativeness of his sample. So the sample of programmers that he has known and observed over his life is unquestionably representative?" there's no reason to doubt != it is unquestionable that
- asdflkj 19y agoThe answer to all of your questions is "No, but that's irrelevant". If you had made your points in the form of statements and not questions, you'd see that they don't actually contradict what I said. As one poster has pointed out, there's no reason to doubt != it is unquestionable that. Likewise, ad hominem can never be valid != biases are never relevant; these accusations of bias are unfounded != PG is completely free from bias; happiness serves an evolutionary purpose != happiness is just a reward (whatever that means). As for the last one, I did back it up. I refuted a central premise of the author, that happiness is evolutionarily useless.