3 ms·

Rather than just being dismissive and expecting everyone to already agree with you, perhaps you could actually explain what problem you're seeing here?

bryanrasmussen 4y ago
I would think the point was obvious, the implication of the text is that in finding 5 errors in 4% of the book it can be assumed that there are 125 errors of equivalent severity in the rest of the book. The assumption is that errors in written work are evenly distributed (which is such a ridiculous assumption that I have a hard time not being dismissive) Otherwise there would be an evident concern that they cherry-picked a part of the book that had more egregious errors than other parts.
- Sniffnoy 4y ago
  Yes, my point is that spelling this out is important; I didn't find it obvious what you were trying to convey at all. (And more generally that people will not find obvious the same things as you, and that it's helpful to be explicit where possible.)
- sooheon 4y ago
  I think the implication is that fact checking an entire book is more effort. One would think errors in a book are evenly distributed without any reasons to believe otherwise. I'd be biased towards thinking the introductory chapter received more editorial attention than the rest of the book, so it is possible the rest of the book contains more errors per page.
  - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
    >One would think errors in a book are evenly distributed without any reasons to believe otherwise. it's an assumption without any data however, so it isn't that great an argument.
- xyzzyz 4y ago
  This is an assumption that you made, not the author, in order to dismiss the concern about the book. It is in fact a pure straw man. Here is a more charitable way to interpret the author’s argument: if first 4% of the book contains substantial number of severe factual errors, it is highly likely that the remaining 96% of the book will also contain many other errors of similar severity. This argument no way hinges on your imputed assumption that errors are uniformly distributed. Suppose, for example, that there are four times as many errors in the first chapter as there are in other chapters. Then, instead of 125 severe factual errors, we’ll only expect 30 of them or so. How exactly does this detract from the author’s critique of the book? Is book with 30 severe factual errors no longer “riddled” with them, in a way a book with 120 of them is? Look, you invented the argument the author did not make, and beating it would not even detract from the author’s point if he actually had made it.

bryanrasmussen 4y ago

I would think the point was obvious, the implication of the text is that in finding 5 errors in 4% of the book it can be assumed that there are 125 errors of equivalent severity in the rest of the book. The assumption is that errors in written work are evenly distributed (which is such a ridiculous assumption that I have a hard time not being dismissive) Otherwise there would be an evident concern that they cherry-picked a part of the book that had more egregious errors than other parts.

Sniffnoy 4y ago
Yes, my point is that spelling this out is important; I didn't find it obvious what you were trying to convey at all. (And more generally that people will not find obvious the same things as you, and that it's helpful to be explicit where possible.)
sooheon 4y ago
I think the implication is that fact checking an entire book is more effort. One would think errors in a book are evenly distributed without any reasons to believe otherwise. I'd be biased towards thinking the introductory chapter received more editorial attention than the rest of the book, so it is possible the rest of the book contains more errors per page.
- bryanrasmussen 4y ago
  >One would think errors in a book are evenly distributed without any reasons to believe otherwise. it's an assumption without any data however, so it isn't that great an argument.
xyzzyz 4y ago
This is an assumption that you made, not the author, in order to dismiss the concern about the book. It is in fact a pure straw man. Here is a more charitable way to interpret the author’s argument: if first 4% of the book contains substantial number of severe factual errors, it is highly likely that the remaining 96% of the book will also contain many other errors of similar severity. This argument no way hinges on your imputed assumption that errors are uniformly distributed. Suppose, for example, that there are four times as many errors in the first chapter as there are in other chapters. Then, instead of 125 severe factual errors, we’ll only expect 30 of them or so. How exactly does this detract from the author’s critique of the book? Is book with 30 severe factual errors no longer “riddled” with them, in a way a book with 120 of them is? Look, you invented the argument the author did not make, and beating it would not even detract from the author’s point if he actually had made it.