My interpretation: you’d suggested improving the accuracy of my guesses about myself by observing recurring patterns of my behavior. I think lessdazed is countersuggesting improving the accuracy of my guesses about people by observing recurring patterns of everyone’s behavior. If I’m similar enough to community averages, then lessdazed’s approach will work better (thanks to the larger data set); if I’m too dissimilar it will work worse. Thus the question: am I different enough from others to justify looking for patterns only in my own behavior?
Right. Or, you know, you could just pray and get your answers from the Ultimate Font of knowledge. I heard that source throws off all kinds of evidence of the validity of its claims.
The more charitable interpretation is that Silas is saying “Yeah, right, that would totally work. About as well as crossing your fingers and guessing.”
Solution: use large N by watching for recurring patterns in oneself, instead of trying to say too much about any particular data point.
Am I different enough from others to sacrifice the even larger N of everything I observe any person does?
Confused, could you elaborate?
My interpretation: you’d suggested improving the accuracy of my guesses about myself by observing recurring patterns of my behavior. I think lessdazed is countersuggesting improving the accuracy of my guesses about people by observing recurring patterns of everyone’s behavior. If I’m similar enough to community averages, then lessdazed’s approach will work better (thanks to the larger data set); if I’m too dissimilar it will work worse. Thus the question: am I different enough from others to justify looking for patterns only in my own behavior?
Get it. Thanks. Good question.
Right. Or, you know, you could just pray and get your answers from the Ultimate Font of knowledge. I heard that source throws off all kinds of evidence of the validity of its claims.
Umm … why is this relevant here?
I was taking calcsam’s purported epistemology and evidentiary standards for arguments seriously. I agree it was a bit “guerilla” though.
It is not relevant at all. It’s an ad hominem; calcsam is a theist. I have downvoted it.
The more charitable interpretation is that Silas is saying “Yeah, right, that would totally work. About as well as crossing your fingers and guessing.”
Which is still pretty shitty.
Not ad hominem, ad epistemologiam.