3 ms·
You keep saying charts and figures. Repeatedly, ad nauseum. As if that's what I was getting at. Quit talking about them, that's not relevant to this discussion.
by bovermyer 7y ago
You keep saying charts and figures. Repeatedly, ad nauseum. As if that's what I was getting at. Quit talking about them, that's not relevant to this discussion.
Comparing two data points will always yield better results than having just one. Data points don't have to be literal points on a graph. They can be discussions with people.
Study historiography or journalism.
- AnimalMuppet 7y agoYou know, it's possible that Paul Graham might have had discussions with people, rather than just his own one-life anecdotal data...
- bovermyer 7y agoNo shit. Ever heard the phrase "trust, but verify?"
- coldtea 7y ago>You keep saying charts and figures. Repeatedly, ad nauseum. Actually I've said the exact phrase twice in this subthread. And considering its the main subject of the subthread (whether those IMO are enough/mandatory or not) it's not really surprising. Perhaps you don't want like to hear it, so you're extra annoyed anytime I mention it, which makes you overcount? Maybe you need some charts and figures of how many times I said that expression. >Comparing two data points will always yield better results than having just one. Which is neither here nor there. A single person could collect 1000s of data points by observation, talking to different people, etc. You don't need a team to do that, or some official citation. There could be bias in said person? Sure. Same way the team/paper could have bias, be non-reproducible crap, be written to make some government body look good, be written to make someone money, etc. It's almost as is critical thinking by the person receiving the single person's anecdote or the, can I say it, charts and figures, is still required. >Study historiography or journalism. Oh, the irony.