3 ms·

Well, surely there exist some police officers/detectives/etc who see their personal career as more important than the ideals of their profession. It would also

by andreyf 16y ago

Well, surely there exist some police officers/detectives/etc who see their personal career as more important than the ideals of their profession. It would also seem reasonable that, on average, these officers are better at advancing to powerful positions than those who care about ideals.

woodall 16y ago
It would also seem reasonable that, on average, these officers are better at advancing to powerful positions than those who care about ideals. It does not seem reasonable because you have cited no statics or data. It would seem reasonable to assume, that on average, ants are all red. You can't just say something and it become true.
- dstorrs 16y ago
  I think you're confused by the word "reasonable." GP post is using it in the sense of "a plausible hypothesis", which it is -- it is plausible that people who care about their careers to the exclusion of all else (e.g., ideals) will advance farther and faster. Whether it is correct is a separate issue -- that is where the statistics and data come in. Actually, "on average, all ants are red" is a good counterexample for plausibility -- talking about a universal truth that applies "on average" is not logical even at a casual glance, therefore it is not reasonable.
  - dagw 16y ago
    The problem is that the opposite hypothesis is also plausible, and without no data about why one is likely to be more "reasonable", the statement doesn't really say anything.
    - andreyf 16y ago
      Agreed. I think that's the common ground between marcusbooster's sentiment and michael_nielsen's experience with individual officers. To expound just a little, I think it's likely that there both exist police departments where careerists do well, and others where responsible officers do. I think we can also all agree that we ought to encourage a legal structure where officers can't advance their careers by falsifying evidence/extracting confessions from innocents/etc.

by andreyf 16y ago

woodall 16y ago

It would also seem reasonable that, on average, these officers are better at advancing to powerful positions than those who care about ideals. It does not seem reasonable because you have cited no statics or data. It would seem reasonable to assume, that on average, ants are all red. You can't just say something and it become true.

dstorrs 16y ago
I think you're confused by the word "reasonable." GP post is using it in the sense of "a plausible hypothesis", which it is -- it is plausible that people who care about their careers to the exclusion of all else (e.g., ideals) will advance farther and faster. Whether it is correct is a separate issue -- that is where the statistics and data come in. Actually, "on average, all ants are red" is a good counterexample for plausibility -- talking about a universal truth that applies "on average" is not logical even at a casual glance, therefore it is not reasonable.
- dagw 16y ago
  The problem is that the opposite hypothesis is also plausible, and without no data about why one is likely to be more "reasonable", the statement doesn't really say anything.
  - andreyf 16y ago
    Agreed. I think that's the common ground between marcusbooster's sentiment and michael_nielsen's experience with individual officers. To expound just a little, I think it's likely that there both exist police departments where careerists do well, and others where responsible officers do. I think we can also all agree that we ought to encourage a legal structure where officers can't advance their careers by falsifying evidence/extracting confessions from innocents/etc.