I think he means that many elegant, simple hypothesis have obscure counterexamples, not that the Machiguenga Indians are typically one of those counterexamples.
Is there not already a past sequence/post dealing with the creation of such ambiguities when there are multiple plausible implicit statements inferable from an inexact syntactical construction? I thought I saw something along those lines somewhere yesterday, but I can’t seem to find it by just retracing my steps.
I think he means that many elegant, simple hypothesis have obscure counterexamples, not that the Machiguenga Indians are typically one of those counterexamples.
Is there not already a past sequence/post dealing with the creation of such ambiguities when there are multiple plausible implicit statements inferable from an inexact syntactical construction? I thought I saw something along those lines somewhere yesterday, but I can’t seem to find it by just retracing my steps.
I genuinely can’t tell if this is intentional.