3 ms·

If you believe this is about pedantry and the literal meaning of words, you’ve missed my point. However, you’re speaking to it: the commenter used the phrase “s

If you believe this is about pedantry and the literal meaning of words, you’ve missed my point. However, you’re speaking to it: the commenter used the phrase “statistically speaking” to indicate their confidence in their assertion. I’m taking issue with the fact that they used the phrase - which, as you say, is strong enough to describe the way taller people are better at basketball - to generalize that Clojure developers are more likely to be qualified than JavaScript developers. Idiomatically, any way you use the phrase implies great confidence in the corresponding claim. But I have not seen any substantial explanation of why this effect makes sense, which makes me extremely suspicious that the effect exists at all. I don’t particularly care about whether they’ve conducted a peer reviewed study. I care about whether or not their heuristic is backed by anything empirical. “I’ve noticed this...” doesn’t cut it, no matter how fast and loose you want to play with the literal meaning of the word in context.

freshhawk 8y ago
It doesn't imply great confidence, it is literally saying a different thing. You seem to think it means the same thing as "scientifically speaking" or "I have evidence that". It very often means only "related to statistics". That's it. No epistemological claims needed. "I'm so going to win the lottery" "On average ... no you aren't" / "Statistically speaking ... no you aren't" / "If you work out the odds ... no you aren't" / etc. If I ask you a question about some gambling game, you are going to think about it in a statistical way. I mean you will think in terms of populations and samples and odds, not that you will go perform experiments and then do a statistical analysis of that evidence in order to come to a scientific conclusion.
jholman 8y ago
I think you're mistaken. I, like you, am riled up by people using puff words to inflate the apparent credibility of claims, often claims that have little or no basis for actual credibility. But I think that "statistically speaking", as it is used by nearly all English speakers, means "speaking about these groups in aggregate", not "speaking as a statistician". It doesn't even mean something about an empirical basis, it means talking about groups. I agree pretty much entirely with freshhawk's analysis. Now, aside from _word choice_, your skepticism about whether the original poster has any empirical basis at all for their claim... well, fair enough.

freshhawk 8y ago

It doesn't imply great confidence, it is literally saying a different thing. You seem to think it means the same thing as "scientifically speaking" or "I have evidence that". It very often means only "related to statistics". That's it. No epistemological claims needed. "I'm so going to win the lottery" "On average ... no you aren't" / "Statistically speaking ... no you aren't" / "If you work out the odds ... no you aren't" / etc. If I ask you a question about some gambling game, you are going to think about it in a statistical way. I mean you will think in terms of populations and samples and odds, not that you will go perform experiments and then do a statistical analysis of that evidence in order to come to a scientific conclusion.

jholman 8y ago

I think you're mistaken. I, like you, am riled up by people using puff words to inflate the apparent credibility of claims, often claims that have little or no basis for actual credibility. But I think that "statistically speaking", as it is used by nearly all English speakers, means "speaking about these groups in aggregate", not "speaking as a statistician". It doesn't even mean something about an empirical basis, it means talking about groups. I agree pretty much entirely with freshhawk's analysis. Now, aside from _word choice_, your skepticism about whether the original poster has any empirical basis at all for their claim... well, fair enough.