Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Is this not the "no-true-scotsman" fallacy? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)





No, it is not. I'm not saying stats that include DUI accidents are not good or useful, just that additional analysis (together with these results) would be interesting as it would give us better insight.

For example, let's say an analysis tells us that a disease X has 1.0% mortality rate. Would you consider additional analyses that tell us that 90% of these are kids under 10 and that mortality rate for kids under 10 is 10% an useful insight or not?

EDIT: Maybe a better example would be a results from real studies that show a slight U curve for relationship between alcohol intake and total mortality. People not drinking any alcohol have higher total mortality than people who drink in moderation. Without additional data it seems that a moderate amount of alcohol is good for your health. Data from a newer study however shows that, if you exclude people who don't drink because of health issues, there is no U curve anymore and people not drinking any alcohol don't have higher total mortality than people who drink in moderation.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: