Actually, it is plausible-sounding, but I can assure you that in 5 minutes of thinking about it you can find at least one excellent alternative explanation for the observed association.
To me these claims are the equivalent of “we use only 10% of our brains”, they have a vague plausibility which explains that so many people have accepted them uncritically, but they don’t stand up to closer examination; unfortunately the damage has been done and you have to do a lot of work to persuade people to let go of the mistaken beliefs they have accepted, and that they now think are “scientific” or “proven by research”.
Actually, the same bug being found earlier rather than later will probably be cheaper to fix, the question about measure of that cheapness (and whether the difference always covers the cost of finding it earlier) is impossible to answer with current level of actual expense we as society are prepared to spend.
Actually, it is plausible-sounding, but I can assure you that in 5 minutes of thinking about it you can find at least one excellent alternative explanation for the observed association.
To me these claims are the equivalent of “we use only 10% of our brains”, they have a vague plausibility which explains that so many people have accepted them uncritically, but they don’t stand up to closer examination; unfortunately the damage has been done and you have to do a lot of work to persuade people to let go of the mistaken beliefs they have accepted, and that they now think are “scientific” or “proven by research”.
There I cited one such reason without thinking 5 minutes
http://lesswrong.com/lw/9sv/diseased_disciplines_the_strange_case_of_the/5tz7
Actually, the same bug being found earlier rather than later will probably be cheaper to fix, the question about measure of that cheapness (and whether the difference always covers the cost of finding it earlier) is impossible to answer with current level of actual expense we as society are prepared to spend.