3 ms·

My claim from a common sense perspective isn't outlandish as saying the moon is made of cheese. Biased samples don't automatically invalidate every aspect of t

My claim from a common sense perspective isn't outlandish as saying the moon is made of cheese. Biased samples don't automatically invalidate every aspect of the sample as a description of the reality. The possibility remains that every most programmers have two eyes just as smarter programmers tend to write sloppier code. Look the general thing here is that anecdotal information is not automatically invalid. Your type of argument just goes around dismissing all forms of anecdotal data as if it's completely false. It's like you cannot even get up from bed and put your feet on the floor because there's no science saying that the floor exists.

fragmede 3y ago
The plural of anecdote is not data! Looking around at the people surrounding you, you could also easily conclude that everyone has the same skin tone. If you've only ever lived in, say, Scotland, you could erroneously conclude that, on top of everyone having two eyes, every one is also white. It's not until you look past the fact that you're in Scotland biases your dataset to being exclusively white people, that you see there are other kinds of people out there. Living in Scotland and sampling your data there, concludes that all humans are white, along with having two eyes.
- ninetyninenine 3y ago
  >Living in Scotland and sampling your data there, concludes that all humans are white, along with having two eyes. So? I also conclude that most humans have two legs and 10 fingers and a head, and two ears and skin and hair. We gonna dismiss all of that because the data is just anecdotal? >The plural of anecdote is not data! The plural of anecdote is anecdotes (with an s) the adjective form of anecdote, is "anecdotal" as in "anecdotal" data.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - fragmede 3y ago
    Anecdotal evidence isn't worthless, but it's not solid proof either. It's prone to bias and lacks the breadth and rigor of systematic data. Pointing out common human traits doesn't strengthen your argument; these are well-documented facts, not mere anecdotes. The leap from "my experience" to "universal truth" requires data, not just stories. Anecdotes spark curiosity; data provides answers.
    - ninetyninenine 3y ago
      Anecdotes are more then just curiosity. They are real possibilities. When you walk you assume the ground is real based off of anecdotal data. Not science. Data and science is hard and highly limited. The majority of the world is unverified with science. To limit your conclusions to only rigorous data is to say you cannot walk because you aren't sure the ground exists. My claim here is that smarter people are more likely to write sloppy code. My meta claim is that That claim is both based off of anecdotal data and also likely to be true.
      - fragmede 3y ago
        Yeah, anecdotes are good for making observations to base a hypothesis off of, but that's it. You can't really draw conclusions from them as if they're data. Walking on the ground is based on a repeatable experience and is based on physics. We can't say if the conclusion you're drawing is most people have two eyes, or that most people are white. Claiming smarter people are more likely to write sloppy code based on anecdotes overlooks how diverse the field of programming is, and how complex programming is, and how different people are. It's a mix of education, experience, culture, and individual habits. Using anecdotal evidence for such claims is going to overlook counterexamples and is basically gonna be confirmation bias. Your meta-claim lacks rigor. Again, the plural of anecdote is not data. The truth of a claim in the realm of human behavior and skills requires empirical evidence, which involves a stupid amount of work to make systematic observations to get shittons of data to override sampling bias, far beyond what any one human could experience. Without data, we've got speculation, not reliable conclusions. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion. You're entitled to believe "smarter people are more likely to write sloppy code." Just like I'm entitled to my opinion that that's based on evidence subject to confirmation and sampling bias rather than any grounding in fact. :) We're going around in circles at this point, so I'll stop, but it's been fun.

fragmede 3y ago

The plural of anecdote is not data! Looking around at the people surrounding you, you could also easily conclude that everyone has the same skin tone. If you've only ever lived in, say, Scotland, you could erroneously conclude that, on top of everyone having two eyes, every one is also white. It's not until you look past the fact that you're in Scotland biases your dataset to being exclusively white people, that you see there are other kinds of people out there. Living in Scotland and sampling your data there, concludes that all humans are white, along with having two eyes.

ninetyninenine 3y ago
>Living in Scotland and sampling your data there, concludes that all humans are white, along with having two eyes. So? I also conclude that most humans have two legs and 10 fingers and a head, and two ears and skin and hair. We gonna dismiss all of that because the data is just anecdotal? >The plural of anecdote is not data! The plural of anecdote is anecdotes (with an s) the adjective form of anecdote, is "anecdotal" as in "anecdotal" data.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- fragmede 3y ago
  Anecdotal evidence isn't worthless, but it's not solid proof either. It's prone to bias and lacks the breadth and rigor of systematic data. Pointing out common human traits doesn't strengthen your argument; these are well-documented facts, not mere anecdotes. The leap from "my experience" to "universal truth" requires data, not just stories. Anecdotes spark curiosity; data provides answers.
  - ninetyninenine 3y ago
    Anecdotes are more then just curiosity. They are real possibilities. When you walk you assume the ground is real based off of anecdotal data. Not science. Data and science is hard and highly limited. The majority of the world is unverified with science. To limit your conclusions to only rigorous data is to say you cannot walk because you aren't sure the ground exists. My claim here is that smarter people are more likely to write sloppy code. My meta claim is that That claim is both based off of anecdotal data and also likely to be true.
    - fragmede 3y ago
      Yeah, anecdotes are good for making observations to base a hypothesis off of, but that's it. You can't really draw conclusions from them as if they're data. Walking on the ground is based on a repeatable experience and is based on physics. We can't say if the conclusion you're drawing is most people have two eyes, or that most people are white. Claiming smarter people are more likely to write sloppy code based on anecdotes overlooks how diverse the field of programming is, and how complex programming is, and how different people are. It's a mix of education, experience, culture, and individual habits. Using anecdotal evidence for such claims is going to overlook counterexamples and is basically gonna be confirmation bias. Your meta-claim lacks rigor. Again, the plural of anecdote is not data. The truth of a claim in the realm of human behavior and skills requires empirical evidence, which involves a stupid amount of work to make systematic observations to get shittons of data to override sampling bias, far beyond what any one human could experience. Without data, we've got speculation, not reliable conclusions. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion. You're entitled to believe "smarter people are more likely to write sloppy code." Just like I'm entitled to my opinion that that's based on evidence subject to confirmation and sampling bias rather than any grounding in fact. :) We're going around in circles at this point, so I'll stop, but it's been fun.