This is the dumbest shit, I swear to god. Let's break it down:
Son, I am dissapoint - Libreboot Edition
Brody Butler
Henry Gonzalez
The problem is that those systems are too complicated to apply statistics with anywhere near the confidence they're currently applied. Unfortunately, those systems are important. I don't think not using statistics on them at all is optimal.
You need to be extremely cautious with biases, and the difference between correlation and causation, and so on, but it is possible to extract useful results.
Aaron Rivera
Until you have particular evidence otherwise correlation is causation
Benjamin Cruz
I do agree with you. That's a healthy approach to vague statistics with high probability of bias. Now the problem is more with the attitude towards this. If you can keep in mind that what you've got is at best perhaps a weak indicator, then fine, it's a tool of sorts. When you start believing that it's some sort of truth and proclaiming it as such, now you've consolidated your bias and hampered scientific progress.
And that's really the problem. The lax attitude of medium-iq academia and also the media (who loves to give people answers to things, no matter if they're correct or not,) that cements strange and probably wrong things as fact in their minds. That academia is lax in these things I'm sure you'll agree with me when the mainstream view of trans-delusions is what the tranny in this thread is espousing.
I think we're more in agreement than not. I too am a man of science, and tries to hold it's tenets high. But we must also accept the fact that the academies have let some serious cancer creep in, with all the unpleasantness this entails.
Dominic Price
it doesn't cure it you faggot, From the stats of the John Hopkins hospital sex sugary section there's still as much as suicide after transitioning, meaning that it isn't a cure and only therapy can be done.
Adam Thompson
Surgery
Levi Smith
Often what they say is it indicates x is (not) healthy, then journos, wanting clicks, go ahead and say "x proven to cause y, but does it cure cancer?". Also stats are really easy to fuck up. Say you learn the basics and apply them to check whether some optimization is good or shit. That works. Now you repeat the same method for 1000 optimizations. It doesn't work, because you'll, for damn sure, find something speeds it up even if it doesn't (since you have an error margin). Stats can cover for it, but the only people who really understand stats are statisticians, people who use stats often only know a thing or two. Also there are cases where people intentionally cheat it like p-value gaming.
There are statistical methods for that, and in many cases it's clear which is which (e.g. in eating plutonium and dying, could dying cause one to eat plutonium?).
Jack Roberts
I think it's a bit of a bigger problem than that. Otherwise mainstream academies wouldn't go along with these delusions as if they were true, now would they? I will concede it's a multifaceted problem, as much bias related as particlarly a problem with statistics, as I expound upon here
But still. The fact is that weird things are being determined in this fashion at the present time, in the highest of academic circles. I think this needs to be acknowledged and pointed out, to save science.
Jacob Bennett
I want to go full ISIS mode and throw them off buildings. Can't have mental illness problems when there are no more mentally ill people.
Jacob Gutierrez
My laughter can't be conveyed with words so I'll just attach an appropriate picture to this post