SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Left Wing Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Dayuhan who wrote (4067)2/15/2001 12:01:49 AM
From: The PhilosopherRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 6089
 
Imagine
that 300 people have the same disease. 100 receive no treatment at all, 100
receive treatment A, 100 receive treatment B. 60 of those in the no-treatment
group die, 25 of those receiving treatment A die, and none of those receiving
treatment A [sic-apparently B intended here] die. If I say that people receiving B are less likely to die of that
particular disease than those who go untreated or those who receive treatment
A, is that merely an opinion?


Precisely. I'm glad I was so clear.

First, it's only an opinion whether the people are really dead. Second, it's only an opinion whether they actually had this disease. Third, it's only an opinion whether they died of the disease. It's only an opinion whether the controls I will accept your assumption as having been properly in place actually meant anything.

I don't deny that some opinions have more common acceptance than others. Indeed, I said that. But they're still opinions.



To: Dayuhan who wrote (4067)2/15/2001 12:07:13 AM
From: cosmicforceRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 6089
 
Yes, that was my point. It is weak nomenclature to call every notion held by anyone, no matter how baseless or well-founded, an opinion. When I said it was disingenuous, I was referring to the assignment of such a vague nomenclature to such disparate POVs and then saying that they are all pretty much the same.