[freejazz]

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.

[JoshCole]

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.

[freejazz]

>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.

[JoshCole]

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.

[freejazz]

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.

[JoshCole]

> I said that the data isn't the only story, so appeals to data aren't dispositive.

No, you didn't. You said please ignore all the times when I'm wrong in favor of when I'm right. This is what you actually said.

You seem to be using language incorrectly. You seem to me to be confusing "said" with "meant" and in this case it seems that what you "said" was very different from what you "meant" so much so that I'm strongly getting the impression that you are lying to me, but if you aren't - then it is because confusion on the difference between said and meant.

Words have meanings. They have meanings independent of your own desires, so whatever you meant to say - it doesn't matter at all - that is not what you said. Please ignore is fairly characterized as a request for ignoring things, because it maps to something like it would be pleasing if there was ignorance. Notice it is you who is claiming of me that it would be pleasing to me if there was ignorance. I'm not making such a claim - you said this - maybe you didn't mean this, but you absolutely said it.

I'm not unfairly characterizing your words: this is the actual implication of the words you used, because it is the implication of the meaning of the words - maybe it isn't the meaning you desired, not what you meant, but it is the meaning of the words.

To kind of highlight how extreme what you claim you said is from what you actually said is, notice that you imply belief about me when talking about me requesting ignorance. Yet now, in your claim about what you actually said, you imply a position you hold: that data isn't dispositive. You don't even have the same reference in what you said versus what you now claim to have said. You did not say what you claimed to say. If you meant that, you should have said that, but these things are very very far diverged.

If you want to state, of your own belief, that data isn't dispositive, you should state that. Instead you consistently referred to a false reference to my own beliefs. Notice, even when you tried to correct my interpretation, you did not switch the reference class to your own belief, you said things like "your argument is ridiculous" which is still talking about me - not your own position that data is not dispositive. So the reference class which is not targeting me, but the general properties you now claim to have said, is not truly there.

> I also caught you editing out what was an excessively rude comment. I'm gonna pass on further conversation, thanks.

As you can imagine, with your confusion about meant versus said, I've been finding you to be lying about both your own views and mine. So if I seem a bit rude, it is because I'm kind of assuming you are smart enough to already realize all these things. I don't mean to assume you are so hostile as to know all this, but then pretend not to, but it is just one of the valid explanations for your behavior. I tried to edit my comment to remove my frustration and I'm sorry you had to see it like that.

> incredibly obtuse manner.

Which leads to this. You stated that you think I'm being obtuse, but my first assumption was that you weren't just directly lying about what I was saying. Your claim, interpreted in the way you said it, not the way you meant it, is a lie about my belief. So I tried to make your words have a meaning that would make them true, not false. I tried to be charitable, but was confused, because it really seemed like you were lying about my beliefs given your statement. This wasn't me being obtuse. This was me trying to be charitable, but being very confused, because interpreted according to what you actually said - not what you meant - you were strictly speaking stating falsehood about my beliefs.