Pareto principle, 80% of the effect is determined by 20% of the variables. To get “all of the data” on an open ended question would be fruitless, but you can be reasonably sure of a theory the more evidence corroborates it. Nothing can ever truly be known in a Platonic sense, but the basis of science is in "most likely"s.
Same thing here. Now you have some “principle” to back you up claiming you can get “ enough”.
Like ok. So when they scan you for that rare space disease that causes people to literally blow up, you’d be fine with them ending the scan at 90% right? Right?
There is no data that isn’t valuable and can sway the ultimate conclusion. None. Only humans have the audacity to think they can cherry pick which lol.
I’m not fine with 90%, but 90% is significantly more reassuring and evidence-based than 0%. And if measuring that last 10% would mean some type of logistical nightmare, then we can act with relative assurance on a 90% likelihood. If you didn’t know, that’s how every fucking scientific test works. P-value of 0.1.
It only takes one zombie to raze a bunker full of people. It only takes one cough to infect someone with a cold. It only takes $1 to mark your payment NSF and incur the penalty.
That’s the point I’m trying to make. That 10% could be HUGE! You can’t quantity life and say “we almost got there, but let’s just say we did.” Would you say I won the race if I only made it 90% of the way?
You need to change your conception “evidence.” Like I asked before, if you had a fatal disease, would you be willing to bet your life on a 90% scan?
Arguments are cool and all, but at the end of the day, you need them to actually have real implications or else… like why?
Pareto principle, 80% of the effect is determined by 20% of the variables. To get “all of the data” on an open ended question would be fruitless, but you can be reasonably sure of a theory the more evidence corroborates it. Nothing can ever truly be known in a Platonic sense, but the basis of science is in "most likely"s.
Same thing here. Now you have some “principle” to back you up claiming you can get “ enough”.
Like ok. So when they scan you for that rare space disease that causes people to literally blow up, you’d be fine with them ending the scan at 90% right? Right?
There is no data that isn’t valuable and can sway the ultimate conclusion. None. Only humans have the audacity to think they can cherry pick which lol.
Bro. Take a hard look at yourself.
I’m not fine with 90%, but 90% is significantly more reassuring and evidence-based than 0%. And if measuring that last 10% would mean some type of logistical nightmare, then we can act with relative assurance on a 90% likelihood. If you didn’t know, that’s how every fucking scientific test works. P-value of 0.1.
It only takes one zombie to raze a bunker full of people. It only takes one cough to infect someone with a cold. It only takes $1 to mark your payment NSF and incur the penalty.
That’s the point I’m trying to make. That 10% could be HUGE! You can’t quantity life and say “we almost got there, but let’s just say we did.” Would you say I won the race if I only made it 90% of the way?
You need to change your conception “evidence.” Like I asked before, if you had a fatal disease, would you be willing to bet your life on a 90% scan?
Arguments are cool and all, but at the end of the day, you need them to actually have real implications or else… like why?
I don’t get it. Are you rejecting science as a tool for discerning truth? Did you even read my post? Because I did answer your question about the 90%.