Any discussion of statistics-based reasoning should include the concept of systematic bias, and that's not mentioned in this article at all. An example of syst

Any discussion of statistics-based reasoning should include the concept of systematic bias, and that's not mentioned in this article at all. An example of systematic bias is that of an accurate but miscalibrated thermometer, where the spread of measurements at fixed temperature is small, but all measurements are off by some large factor. Now with D-K the proposed problem is statistical autocorrelation, not systematic bias, due to lack of independence, as here: > "Subtracting y – x seems fine, until we realize that we’re supposed to interpret this difference as a function of the horizontal axis. But the horizontal axis plots test score x. So we are (implicitly) asked to compare y – x to x" Regardless, it's fairly obvious that D-K enthusiasts are of the opinion that a small group of expert technocrats should be trusted with all the important decisions, as the bulk of humanity doesn't know what's good for it. This is a fairly paternalistic and condescending notion (rather on full display during the Covid pandemic as well). Backing up this opinion with 'scientific studies' is the name of the game, right? It does vaguely remind me of the whole Bell Curve controversy of years past... in that case, systematic bias was more of an issue: > "The last time I checked, both the Protestants and the Catholics in Northern Ireland were white. And yet the Catholics, with their legacy of discrimination, grade out about 15 points lower on I.Q. tests. There are many similar examples." https://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/26/opinion/in-america-throwing-a-curve.html https://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/26/opinion/in-america-throwi... I am reminded of something my very accomplished PI (in the field of earth system science) confided privately to me once... "Purely statistical arguments," she said, "are mostly bullshit..."