2 ms·

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. Dat

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.
- ninetyninenine 3y ago
  No not, "we". You are going in circles. I already stated that you walk therefore you believe the the the ground exists without science. You already assume a truth with zero rigorous scientific data. Yet you don't counter this claim. You make the same argument again and again stating that anecdotal data isn't truth. But you place each foot one in front of the other whenever you walk assuming the ground exists from purely anecdotal data. Why? Thus my argument is valid. IF you don't respond to this then it is YOU who is going in circles. I have definitively responded to your point here with a contradiction. You HAVE not addressed the contradiction. The opening is laid out by me, but instead of moving forward you decide to repeat the same point. Not trying to be offensive here. But I am clearly laying out exactly what's going on here. It is YOU who is travelling in a flat circle. NOT me.

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.

ninetyninenine 3y ago
No not, "we". You are going in circles. I already stated that you walk therefore you believe the the the ground exists without science. You already assume a truth with zero rigorous scientific data. Yet you don't counter this claim. You make the same argument again and again stating that anecdotal data isn't truth. But you place each foot one in front of the other whenever you walk assuming the ground exists from purely anecdotal data. Why? Thus my argument is valid. IF you don't respond to this then it is YOU who is going in circles. I have definitively responded to your point here with a contradiction. You HAVE not addressed the contradiction. The opening is laid out by me, but instead of moving forward you decide to repeat the same point. Not trying to be offensive here. But I am clearly laying out exactly what's going on here. It is YOU who is travelling in a flat circle. NOT me.