NAAFA's Airline Tips for Fat People

Mxsmanic wrote:
Miguel Cruz writes:
3. You claim things to be fact that nobody else agrees are fact.

You cannot know that _nobody else_ agrees with them, since the entire
world does not post here. Indeed, even people posting here sometimes
agree, even if all do not.

Again, based on the fact that nobody steps up to the plate to agree with
you, combined with the general propensity of a lot of people to step up to
the plate to postulate things, stands as the best available support of that
until disproven. We are not dealing with absolutes here. We have entered the
magical realm of probability and statistics and confidence levels.

5. The larger the group of people disagreeing with you,
therefore, the greater the chance that you are in fact
wrong, and not everyone else.

The fallacy of the majority opinion. The birthplace of urban legends.

Nope. Scientific method. Theory stands until disproven.

Many guesses trump one guess, because many means a greater chance that one
is right. To trump that you need to come up with a fact.

You've created a fallacy of your own; that things are somehow wrong just
because a lot of people believe them.

Basically, in the absence of evidence, the majority recollection wins.

Reality isn't a function of whose opinion wins or loses.

That's not the use of "wins" that I intended. I think you know that.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
Site remodeled 10-Sept-2003: Hundreds of new photos, easier navigation.

Miguel Cruz writes:

Again, based on the fact that nobody steps up to the plate to agree with
you, combined with the general propensity of a lot of people to step up to
the plate to postulate things, stands as the best available support of that
until disproven.

People almost invariably "step up to the plate" to disagree, never to
agree.

Many guesses trump one guess, because many means a greater
chance that one is right.

Not so. The validity of a guess depends on the amount of information
upon which it is based, not on the frequency of that particular guess.

You've created a fallacy of your own; that things are
somehow wrong just because a lot of people believe them.

They are neither wrong nor right. They are simply widely believed.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

In article ,
(Mxsmanic) wrote:

Miguel Cruz writes:

Basically, in the absence of evidence, the majority
recollection wins.

Reality isn't a function of whose opinion wins or loses.

No -- but Miguel said recollection (not opinion), and a majority
recollection may be a good indicator as to the reality. An animal isn't
real *because* it's in the Encyclopedia Britannica, either, but its
presence there strongly suggests that it is.

trim headers please.

MX,
would you please trim your headers?

Mxsmanic wrote:
Miguel Cruz writes:
Again, based on the fact that nobody steps up to the plate to agree with
you, combined with the general propensity of a lot of people to step up to
the plate to postulate things, stands as the best available support of that
until disproven.

People almost invariably "step up to the plate" to disagree, never to
agree.

That's not what I've observed. I know I chime in to agree and I've seen
lots of people do it lots of times. Maybe you don't often see them stepping
up to agree with you, and that has colored your perception.

Many guesses trump one guess, because many means a greater
chance that one is right.

Not so. The validity of a guess depends on the amount of information
upon which it is based, not on the frequency of that particular guess.

In this analysis, we don't know the information upon which the opinions are
based. The only thing we know is the quantity of people who have expressed
themselves on either side. It's not quite as good, but it's still data.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
Site remodeled 10-Sept-2003: Hundreds of new photos, easier navigation.

rosie readandpost wrote:
trim headers please.

You keep saying this. What does it mean?

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
Site remodeled 10-Sept-2003: Hundreds of new photos, easier navigation.

Miguel Cruz wrote:

rosie readandpost wrote:
trim headers please.

You keep saying this. What does it mean?

I'm guessing to cut the crossposts- but I don't know which groups are
being suggested for removal. I think it's mostly r.t.e folk who are
posting though.

David

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.co.uk
davidhorne (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

Miguel Cruz writes:

That's not what I've observed. I know I chime in to agree and I've seen
lots of people do it lots of times. Maybe you don't often see them stepping
up to agree with you, and that has colored your perception.

Maybe you remember times that people agreed with you unusually well.

In this analysis, we don't know the information upon which the opinions are
based.

Then why assume that there is any information there at all?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Miguel Cruz writes:
That's not what I've observed. I know I chime in to agree and I've seen
lots of people do it lots of times. Maybe you don't often see them
stepping up to agree with you, and that has colored your perception.

Maybe you remember times that people agreed with you unusually well.

People don't agree with me that much. I'm more talking about others.

In this analysis, we don't know the information upon which the opinions
are based.

Then why assume that there is any information there at all?

Because there are a fair number of smart and informed people here.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
Site remodeled 10-Sept-2003: Hundreds of new photos, easier navigation.