I think mainstream science is too slow and we mere mortals can do better with Bayes.
There are so many fallacies in this statement, I don’t even know where to start.
Start anywhere. I’d be interested in seeing a list.
Even in extreme cases I can only count 1 fallacy per statement, and I can only parse the above into at most 2 propositions. In normal cases I only expect to see 1 per argument, and what you quoted does not appear to be an argument at all. And despite being something of an expert on logic, I don’t see a single fallacy in that.
Start anywhere. I’d be interested in seeing a list.
Even in extreme cases I can only count 1 fallacy per statement, and I can only parse the above into at most 2 propositions. In normal cases I only expect to see 1 per argument, and what you quoted does not appear to be an argument at all. And despite being something of an expert on logic, I don’t see a single fallacy in that.
If you insist...
Implication that reading a pop-psych forum on the net can replace postgrad degrees and the related experience.
Assuming that Bayesian logic somehow replaces extensive experimental testing (to be fair, EY proclaims this kind of nonsense, as well).
Rushing to conclusions based on a very limited second-hand information.
Not noticing that the author the Sequences, while very articulate, is not, by any objective metric, a domain expert in any of the areas covered.
There is more, but this is a start.
It looks like you’re reading a lot into that statement. I certainly didn’t read anything against “extensive experimental testing”.
I don’t feel as confused as I was. I think we’re just using different definitions of “fallacy”.