5 ms·

Not a single human survived in parts of NYC is technically true. Everyone is a billionaire in parts of SF.

andrewinardeer 3y ago
I feel silly for asking, however, this comment has 'whooshed' right over my head. Can you please elaborate and explain this to me?
- V1ndaar 3y ago
  The point is you can always pick a "part" of some place small enough to make any statement of that sort true. Pick a couple of square meter where someone died: "everyone died in parts of X". Pick the area around a couple of billionaire neighbors in SF: everyone is a billionaire in parts of SF. Etc.
  - chiefalchemist 3y ago
    Taken a step further, it's not science when the conclusion is based on cherry picked data; and it's not journalism when you ignore the fact the "science" isn't actually science.
  - magicalhippo 3y ago
    This is why mathematicians are so meticulous with their "if and only if", "everywhere except a countable number of points", infinimum/supremum[1] and so on, and of course equations to really nail things down. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infimum_and_supremum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infimum_and_supremum
- NL807 3y ago
  It's related to the cherry picking fallacy. It's like saying, "everybody speaks French in parts of Europe", making it seem like that is the dominant language. While technically true that people speak French in Europe, the statement also completely omits a crucial detail that 92 % rest of Europe doesn't.
  - quickthrower2 3y ago
    Yes it sort of plays on “parts” as an ambiguous quantity. To the reader, they may assume parts to be “the entire north” rather than “half a culdesac”
Mordisquitos 3y ago
> Not a single human survived in parts of NYC is technically true. It is technically true. But, if we're analysing excess mortality to observe extraordinary circumstances, we shouldn't let that truism disregard the observation that not a single human survived in the top 10 floors of a given skyscraperbof NYC on a particular Tuesday.

I feel silly for asking, however, this comment has 'whooshed' right over my head. Can you please elaborate and explain this to me?

V1ndaar 3y ago
The point is you can always pick a "part" of some place small enough to make any statement of that sort true. Pick a couple of square meter where someone died: "everyone died in parts of X". Pick the area around a couple of billionaire neighbors in SF: everyone is a billionaire in parts of SF. Etc.
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  Taken a step further, it's not science when the conclusion is based on cherry picked data; and it's not journalism when you ignore the fact the "science" isn't actually science.
- magicalhippo 3y ago
  This is why mathematicians are so meticulous with their "if and only if", "everywhere except a countable number of points", infinimum/supremum[1] and so on, and of course equations to really nail things down. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infimum_and_supremum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infimum_and_supremum
NL807 3y ago
It's related to the cherry picking fallacy. It's like saying, "everybody speaks French in parts of Europe", making it seem like that is the dominant language. While technically true that people speak French in Europe, the statement also completely omits a crucial detail that 92 % rest of Europe doesn't.
- quickthrower2 3y ago
  Yes it sort of plays on “parts” as an ambiguous quantity. To the reader, they may assume parts to be “the entire north” rather than “half a culdesac”

Mordisquitos 3y ago

> Not a single human survived in parts of NYC is technically true. It is technically true. But, if we're analysing excess mortality to observe extraordinary circumstances, we shouldn't let that truism disregard the observation that not a single human survived in the top 10 floors of a given skyscraperbof NYC on a particular Tuesday.