On: The Selective Laziness of Reasoning

[eli_gottlieb]

With experiential and statistical evidence, of course.

[baobabaobab → eli_gottlieb]

Experiential and statistical evidence presented in a summary meant to convince a person of something would be known as an argument.

[eli_gottlieb → baobabaobab]

Hold on. Turn this around. You just read an entire paper about how arguments are completely unreliable, to the point of causing you to contradict yourself, and your response is to argue semantics and declare, "Hey, arguments are great! Let's put more things in the 'argument' category, and spend less effort trying to figure out more reliable and accurate ways of reasoning! Yay arguments, and by entailment, yay self-contradiction!"

What the hell?

[hugh4 → eli_gottlieb]

Meanwhile you, who argues that arguments are useless, are arguing.

On the internet, no less!

[crpatino → eli_gottlieb]

<snark>

So you think people can tell evidence from mere opinions? (or, since you mentioned it, have a modicum of working knowledge on Statistics)

</snark>