4 ms·
This is a great example of the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy, caught in the wild! It may very well be the case, that his leaving is related to his collea
by karaterobot 6y ago
This is a great example of the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy, caught in the wild!
It may very well be the case, that his leaving is related to his colleagues being fired, but there's no evidence of it in the article. So Reuters should not be strongly implying — to the extent that no reader would likely draw any other conclusion — that it is. I mean, it probably is, let's be honest, but I kind of expect better from Reuters.
- coding123 6y agoWell he did do it after. The article mentions multiple links and things he said.
- ska 6y ago> but there's no evidence of it in the article. That's not quite correct, but true that the evidence presented is weak (e.g. anonymous "sources familiar")
- Natsu 6y agoAt this point, I honestly mistrust that kind of source and treat it as no more than a rumor someone heard.
- whimsicalism 6y agoI mean, it comes down to whether you trust Reuters. I find that people tend to trust anonymous sources on issues that they agree with, and distrust on issues they don't.
- Natsu 6y agoI actually distrust such sources when I agree with them because I believe that I'm more vulnerable to being manipulated in that case. And I mistrust the process of reporting anonymous sources like it, not Reuters per se. That is, I would mistrust this no matter who it is saying it because the process itself is untrustworthy and unverifiable. If I were writing such an article (and I have written quite a few news articles, mostly about scientific or legal matters), I would leave this information out entirely. A more trustworthy way to do this is to name a source and give their basis for claiming to know that. E.G. Person X heard Bengio say XYZ or what have you. But if your source isn't willing to go on the record, I would leave it out to avoid reporting rumors.