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.
Wait, is this a joke, or have the Machiguenga really provided counterexamples to lots of social science hypotheses?
He also says:
I’m guessing both are a joke.
Yeah, I also took it as a joke.
I took the “like so many other things” to only apply to “was ruined”, not to “was ruined by the Machiguenga”...
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.