If I see a hundred people, one of whom is kicking a vending machine, this is evidence for two conclusions… roughly, “that person is in the top 1% of angry people” and “that person is in the top 1% of anger-inducing situations.”
To draw the former conclusion may not be unfair… I don’t exactly know what that means in this case… but if it turns out that the latter conclusion is true more often than the former, then it’s relatively unjustified (it is, of course, more justified than other conclusions I might draw, such as “that person is having an exceptionally good day” or “that person is significantly less easy to anger than the average person”).
The question then becomes, which conclusion is more often true?
If I see a hundred people, one of whom is kicking a vending machine, this is evidence for two conclusions… roughly, “that person is in the top 1% of angry people” and “that person is in the top 1% of anger-inducing situations.”
To draw the former conclusion may not be unfair… I don’t exactly know what that means in this case… but if it turns out that the latter conclusion is true more often than the former, then it’s relatively unjustified (it is, of course, more justified than other conclusions I might draw, such as “that person is having an exceptionally good day” or “that person is significantly less easy to anger than the average person”).
The question then becomes, which conclusion is more often true?