[orasis]

Sure it’s post-hoc reasoning, but it doesn’t matter because I’m not trying to invalidate a hypothesis.

I’m looking for variants that win. When I find one that wins I look at it and try to add more of the same flavor to the product.

This process works.

[taeric]

This is literally the logical fallacy. You could get lucky. Maybe you have obvious gains to chase. But bad logical arguments are bad because they never work forever. They are corrupted heuristics that can get you in trouble without critical thinking.

Edit: added in forever. Phone dropped some wording I originally had. I think.

[orasis]

Call it a genetic algorithm if you like. I’m looking for incremental wins in a world of infinite possibilities, not truth.

[taeric]

Incremental wins can still lead to dead ends. My phrasing was off in my post. I meant to say that the fallacies aren't that the tactics never work. Just that they can stop working without you really realizing it. A heuristics that can lead you down a dead end.

By all means, keep doing it if it is working for you. But don't confuse it as good advice. And stay vigilant.

[orasis]

Products exist in human reality not some science paper. There are no absolute truths, everything dead-ends eventually. It’s like trying to prove that one set of genes is better than another for future survival - an impossible task.

[taeric]

This belies a belief that science doesn't reflect the real world. It absolutely does.

Again, it may be working in your case. Argument to authority can go a long way. Even ad hom attacks often exist due to a "smell" of the person speaking. It is not, however, logically sound and can easily lead to unsupportable positions.

So, take care. And realize that a lot of the damage of poor practices may be tangential. For example, a belief that the real world can not be described by science.