<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">see below<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Flexman, Connor <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:connor_flexman@brown.edu" target="_blank">connor_flexman@brown.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="">On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 11:49 AM, William Flynn Wallace <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:foozler83@gmail.com" target="_blank">foozler83@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><span><div style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000">Rationality is about drawing correct inferences from limited,<br>
confusing, contradictory, or maliciously doctored facts.<br>
-- Scott Alexander<br><br></div></span><div style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">I'd say this is sheer dumb luck. How can one be rational when the 'facts' are false, or the data aren't complete, or are ambiguous or even completely biased by doctoring?<br><br></div><div style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">bill w</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>You can read the answer at <a href="http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/27/why-i-am-not-rene-descartes/" target="_blank">http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/27/why-i-am-not-rene-descartes/</a>. The point isn't that you literally arrive to a correct conclusion based on actually doctored data. The point is that you take a bunch of conflicting nutrition studies, some of which may be doctored, some of which have crappy technique, some of which are noise, and pull out of that data the best thing you can: a conclusion that may be relatively weak and have large confidence intervals, but is nonetheless not what many people get out of it, which is "X is clearly correct, the other studies are bunk, I am done with this topic". Darwin being rational enough to piece together natural selection from extremely limited evidence is also an example Alexander uses.</div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div>Connor</div></font></span></div>
</div></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0);display:inline">Thanks! IF you have those kinds of studies, the only conclusion you can reach is that studies need to be done with better technique, or whatever they are weak in. You may at best have a hypothesis to test, but conclusions? No way. </div></blockquote><div><br><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0);display:inline">Apparently the evidence Darwin had was good evidence, if limited. And a great intuitive mind. Notice, though, that he did not publish for years and year and years and more and more evidence.<br></div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0);display:inline"> bill w</div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>