Normally, it’s a four-year liberal arts degree to learn the subtle arts of weighing up unreliable human-generated evidence and turning it into useful information
I’ve never heard of that being taught in college. Is there a Bayesian stats class involved? Could these alleged evidence-weighers combine two likelihood ratios with a prior?
I mean, I’m sorry, but the above is just a ridiculous assertion. If there were any four-year university degree which taught people how to weigh evidence correctly, the world would look very different from the way it currently does.
David_Gerard’s reasoning seems to me to depend less on the assertion that a four-year liberal arts degree is sufficient to extract truth from human-generated evidence by some set of external standards, and more on the assertion that however flawed the liberal-arts methodology is, WP:* generates some unique and serious issues of its own.
I’ve never heard of that being taught in college. Is there a Bayesian stats class involved? Could these alleged evidence-weighers combine two likelihood ratios with a prior?
I mean, I’m sorry, but the above is just a ridiculous assertion. If there were any four-year university degree which taught people how to weigh evidence correctly, the world would look very different from the way it currently does.
David_Gerard’s reasoning seems to me to depend less on the assertion that a four-year liberal arts degree is sufficient to extract truth from human-generated evidence by some set of external standards, and more on the assertion that however flawed the liberal-arts methodology is, WP:* generates some unique and serious issues of its own.
That seems pretty reasonable to me.
Pretty much. The Wikipedia method is actually worse.