2 ms·
This is more of a problem with statistics than with focusing on outliers. Per your example, if something has 0 explanation for whatever has 99% of influence, i
by srcreigh 5y ago
This is more of a problem with statistics than with focusing on outliers.
Per your example, if something has 0 explanation for whatever has 99% of influence, it is just not a useful explanatory mechanism. That doesn't mean there isn't a good explanation.
- civilized 5y agoStatistics exists because people who think they have the explanation for a single important data point are very often wrong. If you could recognize the causal networks behind a complex system the way a toddler can recognize a cat, after being shown very few examples, there would be no need for statistics. Unfortunately, you can't. (But it doesn't stop lucky guessers thinking they can.)
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- srcreigh 5y agoStatistics is just one way to get a correct answer, no? Or it may not even be a way to get a correct answer at all. It seems more of a checking mechanism to filter out answers which are not correct. A scientific hypothesis is correct or not independently of statistical analysis. It's true before it is verified. Statistics is just a social mechanism for demonstrating its correctness to other people (or yourself.) It's entirely possible for someone to know they're right, actually be right, and it be uncheckable with statistics. The only difference between an outlier and a lucky guesser is knowledge. Blah blah blah anything that's measured ceases to be a good measure blah blah blah.