Warning: anecdata with n = 1, I’ve seen something similar with Internet comments.
There is something to this. At some point in the past seven years or so, the commenting zeitgeist internalized “citations needed” to the point that even the most shoddy of arguments features some abuse of logic/philosophy/statistics, providing a pseudo-intellectual facade that takes way more effort to refute.
There’s always going to be faulty argumentation and statistical reasoning is the new trend. That doesn’t meant there’s something better about deductive reasoning, it’s just easier for most folks to validate. I’m guessing that statistical literacy will increase with time.
good point, deductive reasoning is not per-se better. But with statistical literacy, in many everyday situations where empirical arguments are made, the answer will more likely be: We need more experiments. And those are often expensive and time-consuming.
Warning: anecdata with n = 1, I’ve seen something similar with Internet comments.
There is something to this. At some point in the past seven years or so, the commenting zeitgeist internalized “citations needed” to the point that even the most shoddy of arguments features some abuse of logic/philosophy/statistics, providing a pseudo-intellectual facade that takes way more effort to refute.
There’s always going to be faulty argumentation and statistical reasoning is the new trend. That doesn’t meant there’s something better about deductive reasoning, it’s just easier for most folks to validate. I’m guessing that statistical literacy will increase with time.
good point, deductive reasoning is not per-se better. But with statistical literacy, in many everyday situations where empirical arguments are made, the answer will more likely be: We need more experiments. And those are often expensive and time-consuming.