My claim is negative: there is NO investment optimal for everyone; optimality is hard to define and even harder to estimate; equity index funds are just an asset class, one among many; etc.
This comes nowhere near the standard you’ve tried to impose on your interlocutor.
You are either willfully or autistically not parsing English as an English speaker would normally intend it. “Is not evidence” normally means “is not good evidence”. The speaker does not have to insert the word “good” for it to have that meaning.
I’m sorry, but are you projecting? I’ve outlined how much evidence I ascribe to this situation, and Lumifer has been clear that he ascribes much less. This isn’t a debate over omitted modifiers.
Either you think that “I have a PhD” is evidence but not good evidence, in which case you are indeed complaining about the omitted modifier, or else you think that “I have a PhD” is good evidence, which is a claim I find astonishing.
Furthermore, you just got finished saying that logical fallacies are (possibly weak) evidence, as if being weak evidence would be relevant, and you linked to a post which says that evidence that is not good is still evidence. These support the interpretation that you were talking about PhDs being evidence at all, not about PhDs being good evidence.
You’re simply wrong. It is evidence.
This comes nowhere near the standard you’ve tried to impose on your interlocutor.
Obviously, I disagree.
That’s because I don’t go around telling people that the problem of investment allocation is solved and all you need to do is invest in index funds.
Have you read this?
You are either willfully or autistically not parsing English as an English speaker would normally intend it. “Is not evidence” normally means “is not good evidence”. The speaker does not have to insert the word “good” for it to have that meaning.
I’m sorry, but are you projecting? I’ve outlined how much evidence I ascribe to this situation, and Lumifer has been clear that he ascribes much less. This isn’t a debate over omitted modifiers.
Either you think that “I have a PhD” is evidence but not good evidence, in which case you are indeed complaining about the omitted modifier, or else you think that “I have a PhD” is good evidence, which is a claim I find astonishing.
Furthermore, you just got finished saying that logical fallacies are (possibly weak) evidence, as if being weak evidence would be relevant, and you linked to a post which says that evidence that is not good is still evidence. These support the interpretation that you were talking about PhDs being evidence at all, not about PhDs being good evidence.