3 ms·
But coincidences are covered by his (3). By definition coincidences are low probability events, if one does not account for coincidences, then yes, with low pro
by srean 12y ago
But coincidences are covered by his (3). By definition coincidences are low probability events, if one does not account for coincidences, then yes, with low probability it will get it wrong. I think this gets more into the probably approximately correct (PAC) learning domain.
- alok-g 12y agoI was thinking also if they were covered by #3, but I am not sure: >> 3) A lack of other plausible explanations This means that there are not other parameters involved, satisfying the other two criteria, that can also plausibly "explain" the measured effect. In the example I gave, there may not be any such other available correlation. That the analyst picked the plausible cause by hunting though a large number of others is by itself not a plausible explanation asked for by #3.