I agree that people who don't cite the evidence are ignoring the evidence? Are you trying to say I'm doing that by pointing to relevant datasets which track the number of accidents and the probability of injury? If so, why are there accidents tracked in the datasets such that the rate can be calculated? This kind of contradicts the claim that I'm asking to ignore, but I definitely agree that other people are ignoring the data if that is what you are trying to say.
No, your argument is just ridiculous. The standard isn't and shouldn't be how much they get right. It should be what they get wrong and how they do that. I completely disagree with your point, and phrasing it obtusely just makes you obnoxious from a conversational standpoint.
My position is that we ought to include assertions backed by the evidence. Your views probably do have evidence that supports them. I want to see the evidence you are using, because I think that is important.
I'm not sorry that annoys you, because it shouldn't.
>Oh. So you don't like the data, because it disagrees with you. So you are trying to pretend I'm ignoring data, even though I'm linking to summary statistics which by their nature summarize the statistics rather than ignoring the statistics.
Oh the data is great. I like the data. I'd take the data out to dinner. It's completely besides my point, and you continuing to be obtuse and rephrasing things this way, is not only a strawman, but it's rude.
> Your views probably do have evidence that supports them. I want to see the evidence you are using, because I think that is important.
Not every policy decision is driven by data. Some are driven by reasoning and sensibility, as well as deference to previous practices. So your whole data-driven shtick is just that... a shtick.
You claim that I said that we should ignore evidence, but I didn't. I claimed that we should look at it.
You claim that I said that we should focus on the good, but I didn't. I claimed that we should look at the data.
Now I feel as if you are trying to argue that looking at data is wrong because not all decisions should be made on the basis of the data. This seems inconsistent to me with your previous assertion that my ignoring data was bad, because now you argue against your own previous position.
That said, uh, datasets related to bayesian priors support your assertions about deference in decision making. So you could, if you cared to, support that claim with data. It would contradict your broader point that I should not want to have data, but you could support it with data and I would agree with you, because contrary to your assertion I was making an argument for evidence informed statements. Your inference about whether I think the evidence leans should not be taken as an argument that I believe my positions would always be what was reached by looking at the evidence, because I don't think that is true. I'm obviously going to be wrong often. Everyone is.
Unfortunately, I think you lie too much and shift your goalposts too much. So I'm not going to talk to you anymore.
I never said you shouldn't want to have data. I said that the data isn't the only story, so appeals to data aren't dispositive. Data is clearly the only thing you are capable or willing to talk about. There isn't a point in furthering this conversation if you are just going to repeatedly misrepresent my comments and converse in this incredibly obtuse manner.
I also caught you editing out what was an excessively rude comment. I'm gonna pass on further conversation, thanks.