Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
This is not a very good way to put it.Typically what happens is posters like OP provide real in-game data for analysis. Other posters who dislike the implications of the data will claim the sample size is too small. It's basically a "god of the gaps" argument. You can throw away all data you disagree with, because there is always a chance the data is wrong in some manner.
I think most people understand there is always a risk of the sample size tainting any conclusions drawn. However, most people who claim a sample size is too small do not provide a larger sample size themselves.
So we end up in a conundrum: Do you trust real data that may be flawed due to sample size? Or do you prefer trusting detractors of the data who merely have anecdotes and no data themselves?
Personally I prefer to trust data over anecdotes generally speaking. This is especially true on P99. People have memories from Everquest live, current P99, and previous P99 patches. It's always possible for anecdotes to be from live or a previous p99 patch, rather than how P99 currently works today.
|
Data means nothing until you interpret it. You can disagree on the interpretation but if you're going to throw out a data set with no counter argument you're just acting in bad faith.
Anecdotal evidence isn't meaningless but people have to understand it sits below the bottom of the "levels of evidence" pyramid.
I, for one, have only been on these forums a couple months and already saw two instances of a major "this has been parsed to death and we already know the answer" being wrong. So I'll take a sketchy parse over common knowledge any day but if the parse isn't great you have to keep your certainties in check when it comes to your interpretations.