2 ms·
Predicting a negative effect is extremely common in science effecting humans. No reason to abandon a field. >but he still promulgated theories which wreaked th
by constantcrying 3y ago
Predicting a negative effect is extremely common in science effecting humans. No reason to abandon a field.
>but he still promulgated theories which wreaked the badness he felt bad about
No. His prediction was that increasing the minimum wage leads to increased unemployment. He predicted a negative effect and a negative effect happened.
None of this has to do with article, which makes a very simple point about statistics.
- ggm 3y ago> None of this has to do with article, which makes a very simple point about statistics. I am addressing a 'how is this ad hom' question not Friedman's character or the article. I seek to explain what view of him would be a critique of character not substance.
- constantcrying 3y agoIt isn't an adhom because it is irrelevant.
- ggm 3y agoThis isn't a very good line of reasoning because it's a non sequiteur. At this point I think you're trolling more than discussing rationally.
- constantcrying 3y agoIt is an article about a statistical concept.