4 ms·

This is the classic fallacy of treating absence of evidence as evidence of absence (especially when you're biased towards the conclusion). OP claims that the b

by hnfong 3y ago

This is the classic fallacy of treating absence of evidence as evidence of absence (especially when you're biased towards the conclusion). OP claims that the benefits of RTO cannot be easily assessed, and while the benefits of WFH are easily quantifiable, without further knowledge of the benefits of RTO you can't come to a rational, rigorous conclusion on which is better. You can make guesses, but it's "less rigorous" as OP says.

dgfitz 3y ago
> ... without further knowledge of the benefits of RTO you can't come to a rational, rigorous conclusion on which is better. Better for whom?
lolinder 3y ago
In the absence of evidence that RTO is better for productivity and given the mountain of evidence that WFH eliminates the many harmful externalities of commuting, the rational course of action is to maintain the status quo of WFH until more information is obtained about productivity. Forcing hundreds of thousands of people to upend their lives and move back to large cities so that they can drive to the office again is irrational when there is no concrete evidence that it will make companies perform any better.
- mrangle 3y ago
  That conclusion isn't rational. Neither in terms of the framing of the evidence that supports it, nor in terms of the logic that follows. Next, I don't see how anyone can generalize these conclusions when company specifics are specific. Last, being unemployed also eliminates the harmful externalities of the fundamental task of commuting. The only reason that managers require for RTO is that they want to see your face. The manager role exists to make human decisions as to what will be best for their specific company. As far as I know, random uncritiqued research doesn't yet manage companies.
  - lolinder 3y ago
    > That conclusion isn't rational. Neither in terms of the framing of the evidence that supports it, nor in terms of the logic that follows. Can you elaborate on what exactly isn't rational? I laid out a chain of thought that can be attacked link by link, you've just made a sweeping claim with no backing arguments.
  - dickersnoodle 3y ago
    >The only reason that managers require for RTO is that they want to see your face. Turn on your webcam next time.
loeg 3y ago
Is there a classic fallacy for dismissing the best available evidence as a "classic fallacy?" It is impossible to prove a negative; the best we can do is repeatedly fail to find evidence. So far all evidence points that way. GP's statement is reasonable and measured. I don't think this subject's treatment is any "less rigorous" than anything else that gets discussed here. I believe you will find a mix of personal anecdote, opinions that are objectively contrary to best available evidence, and "rigorous" comments in most discussions here. This topic is not unique.
- mrangle 3y ago
  Non-sarcastic question: do you have a graduate science degree, in any field, and therefore were you taught how to evaluate evidence? Given that your post sentiment rests on the concept of "best evidence". I'm not trying to call you out nor embarrass you (nor assuming that I could). I'm trying to examine, and highlight if warranted, how terms are being thrown around. Understand that claimed status as best evidence, generally speaking, hasn't a direct relationship to whether or not research is quality evidence.
dventimihasura 3y ago
OTOH the OP makes unscientific claims like OTOH it's likely to be obvious to people actually in the environment long before it has a measurable impact on any kind of balance sheet in a comment complaining about other people being unscientific. Personally, that's enough for me to discount the whole thing.
brigadier132 3y ago
> This is the classic fallacy of treating absence of evidence as evidence of absence (especially when you're biased towards the conclusion). I did not claim there was no evidence for RTO. If there is any evidence of benefit of RTO, due to lack of ability to measure it it has to be highly discounted against the easily measurable benefits of WFH. If I'm saving $1 million a year on real estate because of WFH and someone comes and tells me about his gut feeling that RTO is better because of a bunch of reasons that have no quantifiable measure it would be absolutely braindead of me to assume that those benefits outweigh the literal $1million in savings I'm getting.
smaudet 3y ago
If you have solid evidence that WFH is worse, then sure maybe you have a point. But if your hypothesis remains unproven, you can't prove it by hand waving and saying that the absence of evidence is proof of its validity...your hypothesis is just unproven. One has solid proof (WFH), one does not (RTO). The logical, putative thing to do is to respect the solid proof, not the hand-wavy argument.

by hnfong 3y ago

dgfitz 3y ago

> ... without further knowledge of the benefits of RTO you can't come to a rational, rigorous conclusion on which is better. Better for whom?

lolinder 3y ago

In the absence of evidence that RTO is better for productivity and given the mountain of evidence that WFH eliminates the many harmful externalities of commuting, the rational course of action is to maintain the status quo of WFH until more information is obtained about productivity. Forcing hundreds of thousands of people to upend their lives and move back to large cities so that they can drive to the office again is irrational when there is no concrete evidence that it will make companies perform any better.

mrangle 3y ago
That conclusion isn't rational. Neither in terms of the framing of the evidence that supports it, nor in terms of the logic that follows. Next, I don't see how anyone can generalize these conclusions when company specifics are specific. Last, being unemployed also eliminates the harmful externalities of the fundamental task of commuting. The only reason that managers require for RTO is that they want to see your face. The manager role exists to make human decisions as to what will be best for their specific company. As far as I know, random uncritiqued research doesn't yet manage companies.
- lolinder 3y ago
  > That conclusion isn't rational. Neither in terms of the framing of the evidence that supports it, nor in terms of the logic that follows. Can you elaborate on what exactly isn't rational? I laid out a chain of thought that can be attacked link by link, you've just made a sweeping claim with no backing arguments.
- dickersnoodle 3y ago
  >The only reason that managers require for RTO is that they want to see your face. Turn on your webcam next time.

loeg 3y ago

Is there a classic fallacy for dismissing the best available evidence as a "classic fallacy?" It is impossible to prove a negative; the best we can do is repeatedly fail to find evidence. So far all evidence points that way. GP's statement is reasonable and measured. I don't think this subject's treatment is any "less rigorous" than anything else that gets discussed here. I believe you will find a mix of personal anecdote, opinions that are objectively contrary to best available evidence, and "rigorous" comments in most discussions here. This topic is not unique.

mrangle 3y ago
Non-sarcastic question: do you have a graduate science degree, in any field, and therefore were you taught how to evaluate evidence? Given that your post sentiment rests on the concept of "best evidence". I'm not trying to call you out nor embarrass you (nor assuming that I could). I'm trying to examine, and highlight if warranted, how terms are being thrown around. Understand that claimed status as best evidence, generally speaking, hasn't a direct relationship to whether or not research is quality evidence.

dventimihasura 3y ago

OTOH the OP makes unscientific claims like OTOH it's likely to be obvious to people actually in the environment long before it has a measurable impact on any kind of balance sheet in a comment complaining about other people being unscientific. Personally, that's enough for me to discount the whole thing.

brigadier132 3y ago

> This is the classic fallacy of treating absence of evidence as evidence of absence (especially when you're biased towards the conclusion). I did not claim there was no evidence for RTO. If there is any evidence of benefit of RTO, due to lack of ability to measure it it has to be highly discounted against the easily measurable benefits of WFH. If I'm saving $1 million a year on real estate because of WFH and someone comes and tells me about his gut feeling that RTO is better because of a bunch of reasons that have no quantifiable measure it would be absolutely braindead of me to assume that those benefits outweigh the literal $1million in savings I'm getting.

smaudet 3y ago

If you have solid evidence that WFH is worse, then sure maybe you have a point. But if your hypothesis remains unproven, you can't prove it by hand waving and saying that the absence of evidence is proof of its validity...your hypothesis is just unproven. One has solid proof (WFH), one does not (RTO). The logical, putative thing to do is to respect the solid proof, not the hand-wavy argument.