[arp242]

Any real-world situation (outside of simple trivial matters)? War, health care, immigration, economics, running a business, those kind of things. Chess is just a game and not very important. No one is talking about games here.

Getting a good overview of what happens at scale is exceedingly hard, and on pretty much all of this you need to take in more inputs than what can be strictly quantified.

[antisthenes]

> Any real-world situation (outside of simple trivial matters)?

I knew someone would come along and move the goalposts.

Why don't you provide an example then? Or you come up with an example where having additional and relevant data is explicitly _worse_ for the outcome.

[arp242]

No one is moving anything. Does the linked article talk about chess? Or matters like war, business, health care, and hiring? The context of what's being discussed here is political and business decisions, not games like chess.

No one in this entire thread claimed that having more data is bad. This is also not what the fallacy is about and no one is against having good quantifiable data.

[drewcoo]

> No one is moving anything.

Incorrect! I don't know either of you, but let's play fairly.

The other person was asked if they ever had complete information, then they provided an example. Then the goalposts were moved to not only "real world situation," but "non-trivial."

It's possible to deem any real-world situation they offered in return with complete information to be "trivial," thus moving the goalposts again.