Reuters: 90% Tesla defects

[AnxietyRanger]

Anecdotal supporting evidence:

Let's just say there were so many imperfections in the exterior that it took us 30 minutes to document and photograph. We were told different stories by the delivery staff : 1) this is pretty normal and 2) no I don't see what you mean and 3) this is normal for EOQ cars. We were also told that production is always going top speed and this is how some cars come to them and they give them to service to fix.

 

[Mediocrates]

The issue is when does something that is anecdotal have probative value. You said never.

Not once have I made any statement with this meaning: anecdotal evidence, regardless of context, cannot be used as a part of proof or demonstration.

Note the phrase "data inferred from anecdote" in my initial statement. Also note the explicitly defined terms and identified contexts in my lesson post. All of the answers to your questions are in that post.

If it is still unclear, I will perform the analysis of the "dalmatian-Tesla" argument you presented in your last post. That may help you and others understand the Hasty Generalization fallacy as applies to anecdotal evidence.

I did neglect to include one thing in my lesson, which is resources for people to continue learning and/or explore the same material from different presentations. Here are some resources for information regarding the topic of anecdotal evidence (in various contexts) and identifying the related fallacies:

Anecdotal evidence - RationalWiki
5 reasons why anecdotes are totally worthless
Anecdotes as evidence
Anecdotal evidence

 

[Canuck]

Not once have I made any statement with this meaning: anecdotal evidence, regardless of context, cannot be used as a part of proof or demonstration.

You can't really say that with a straight face when you said this:

Conclusions reached by data inferred from anecdote are fallacious, regardless of the conclusion drawn.

You must know what "regardless" means? That was the word I took issue with, along with "fallacious" since otherwise your post was true.

re·gard·less
rəˈɡärdləs/
adverb

1. without paying attention to the present situation; despite the prevailing circumstances.
   "they were determined to carry on regardless"
   synonyms: anyway, anyhow, in any case, nevertheless, nonetheless, despite everything, in spite of everything, even so, all the same, in any event, come what may; More

Now you are saying "context" must be taken into account when "regardless" means "without paying attention to the present situation"?

You're looking quite pathetic in your explanations, and still maintain the "wise man on the hill imparting knowledge to the lessor beings" which is really quite funny since you're attempt at explanations only make you look more foolish with your bizarre attempt at logic. You really do live up to your name, since your attempt at reason by way of philosophy is a joke, but you're not joking here (or are you?) so once again...

I don't know why you take such offence to my challenge of your statement. I agreed with everything else you said other than the last line since it was wrong. We all say things that are wrong. It's really no big deal.

Here's my correction to your statement:

"Conclusions reached by data inferred from anecdote are usually fallacious but in rare circumstances, depending on context, they may have some probative value in relation to conclusions reached from anecdotal evidence."

If you are joking, since I looked up the meaning of your name, good on you. You reeled in me in hook, line and sinker.

If you're not joking, and still maintain you are right, I'm done with this conversation. If you still fail to see your error, then you just like to try to be proved right, when all the facts and definitions show otherwise.

 

[Mediocrates]

You can't really say that with a straight face when you said this:

You must know what "regardless" means? That was the word I took issue with, along with "fallacious" since otherwise your post was true.

Now you are saying "context" must be taken into account when "regardless" means "without paying attention to the present situation"?

In my initial statement, I used the word, "regardless". I followed it with the words, "of the conclusion drawn".

"Regardless of the conclusion drawn" does not mean "regardless of context." A conclusion is not a context. Those are notably different concepts.

Here's my correction to your statement:

"Conclusions reached by data inferred from anecdote are usually fallacious but in rare circumstances, depending on context, they may have some probative value in relation to conclusions reached from anecdotal evidence."

After reading this, maybe I see the grand misunderstanding here. When I first read your revision, the sentence made no structural sense in regards to my original statement. The nouns and pronouns didn't even match, so it was puzzling. Then, I thought about it a bit more, and I realized my original statement could be read in a way that changes the intended assignment of meaning.

Let me break it down a bit.

The first component is, "data inferred from anecdote". This is a condensed version of the Hasty Generalization fallacy, which is a fallacy committed when a small number of informal reports are assumed to be statisticially significant and representative of the data of the entire group. The contrast between anecdotal evidence and data is crucial, hence I repeatedly identify this as a statistical context.

The second component is, "Conclusions reached by...are fallacious". This is a condensed (and possibly ambiguous) version of the statement that arguments using anecdotal evidence as data are fallacious, which means the arguments are logically invalid.

The third component is, "regardless of the conclusion drawn". This means the content of the conclusion is irrelevant to whether or not the argument is logically valid.

If we chain these together in a different way, it would read like this:

It is fallacious argumentation when using anecdotal evidence to represent data and drawing conclusions based on that data.

Does that make sense?

 

[SucreTease]

Enough of your bickering, @Mediocrates and @Canuck.! When you have descended to arguing about what it means to argue, then you have really gone too far. Could the two of you really take this debate elsewhere instead of parading it in front of everyone else?

 

[Mediocrates]

I'd much rather handle these things in private, as to not derail threads.

 

[SucreTease]

I'd much rather handle these things in private, as to not derail threads.

Evidence on exhibit here demonstrates otherwise.

 

[Canuck]

Enough of your bickering, @Mediocrates and @Canuck.! When you have descended to arguing about what it means to argue, then you have really gone too far. Could the two of you really take this debate elsewhere instead of parading it in front of everyone else?

Yes, point taken. Sorry to derail the thread. My apologies.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Evidence on exhibit here demonstrates otherwise.

Nah, we all slip in the heat of the moment. I believe @Mediocrates and @Canuck mean it when they are reflective on it.

It is just not always easy to stop like that and take it to private. Sometimes the moment just takes you...

 

[Tiger]

Tesla Stock is due for a correction. This company has yet to have a quarter with a profit.

You have misunderstood TSLA stock, its goal (like Amazon) is not to make profit, but instead re-invest all revenue with 100% plowback ratio resulting in better capital gains (market value increase). If you prefer stock with cash yield, you should consider other options such as dividend stocks.

It's not a one-size-fits-all market.