Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 9377035" data-attributes="member: 8461">Again, you don't seem to be drawing a distinction between "mistrust" and "skepticism." What do you think the difference is?Which isn't relevant here, since "they haven't shown us their data, so I'm not taking their conclusions at face value" is far and away different than "there's a vast conspiracy dedicated to feeding us false information for their own nefarious purposes!"If you don't think that not simply believing what you're told to believe, until there's evidence to support it, is a matter of principle then I don't know what to tell you.Your point is wrong. Saying "this company is reporting on the use of its own product, without showing how they reached their conclusions (and has already publicly admitted to at least one error in those conclusions), ergo I'm skeptical of their results" is entirely healthy."I'm going to believe what they tell us to believe, despite their having been wrong before, and a partisan interest in the results" is not.When you have no data to base anything on, not making a conclusion (since that would be based on nothing) is not "too bad." It's the correct method of reasoning.Again, I'm not saying I have "superior data." I'm saying WotC hasn't shown their data, so believing what they say is essentially taking their word on faith alone. I don't particularly care for faith-based stances, but you do you I guess.Again, not having a better one doesn't mean that the existing one is any good. If I don't have a map of the Appalachian Trail, trying to navigate it via a map of the Grand Canyon isn't a good idea. Likewise, I've already replied to and disproven the "you're accusing them of being intentionally misleading" strawman, i.e. if someone has a partisan interest in the results they're reporting on, suspending judgment is simply prudent.Again, your point is that you should take WotC's results at "face value," apparently because there's nothing better. I'm saying that "there's nothing value" doesn't imbue their data with value, facial or otherwise. The map of the Grand Canyon doesn't become more helpful in navigating the Appalachian Trail just because it's the only map you have.</blockquote>

Verification