4 ms·
No, I'm pretty sure gp means drawing conclusions based off of lived experience instead of more general statistics. Or at least, not putting so much faith in sta
by matrix87 3y ago
No, I'm pretty sure gp means drawing conclusions based off of lived experience instead of more general statistics. Or at least, not putting so much faith in statistics to allow them to cancel personal experiences which are opposed to them
Maybe an argument for that could be that statistics are normally framed in a certain way, or may obscure certain things, or may be inconclusive. Statistics can be gamed, sometimes common sense is more trustworthy
And I don't think flagging is an appropriate response to gp either, there's definitely room to discuss that type of perspective
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- pintxo 3y agoNo one is going to argue against using common sense to validate statistics and their underlying assumptions. But replacing statistics with “common sense” is just nonsense. Humanity has come to the point it is now, not by following “common sense” but by following science. And that’s more often than not basically statistics.
- matrix87 3y ago> Humanity has come to the point it is now, not by following “common sense” but by following science What do you mean by "following science" here? As in, making your own observations, testing your own hypotheses? I'm not arguing against that, if anything I'm arguing for making that the norm If you're saying "give other people's statistics prevalence over my own recorded ones", why call that science if it isn't anywhere in the scientific method? Why hijack the phrase? Why not call it "trust in authority" or something less dishonest?
- pintxo 3y agoNot sure what we are arguing here. As far as I am concerned, "give other people's statistics prevalence over my own recorded ones" is not science, and I never said this. Science is following a process, sharing your results, and then to let others confirm or falsify your results.