Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Akrapovic
I'm not a fan off one of comparisons like that as it never tells the full story. DC beat Hakkinen in 2001. Hakkinen beat Schumacher in 98 and 99. Therefore DC is better than Schumacher. And Rosberg beat Schumacher at Mercedes, therefore Rosberg is the greatest driver in the world, closely followed by David Coulthard.
That sentence is of course, barmy. But that's why I don't like these one-offs.
|
That's a very good logical point. You are highlighting the problem of taking a few results individually, and then inferring something about the whole, while ignoring the majority of the evidence such as the general statistics and all of the other convolutions that determine who is the best driver. It's a mistake in reasoning called, "slothful induction fallacy," where people make the mistake of focusing on the MINORITY evidence, and letting that evidence dictate their conclusion, and basically ignoring the proper conclusion the majority of the evidence is actually pointing to.
EXAMPLE: "Ted isn't clumsy, someone left an object on the floor and that is why he tripped." (but if there is a long history of clumsiness for Ted, for various reasons and the evidence is clearly damning, then this doesn't matter much)
Now I am not the most massive Hamilton fan but I am still a fan of his driving, and all of the evidence collectively shows us that he is exceptional as a driver and it could never be stated flippantly, that some other driver could beat him, as that would be to SURMISE that they could, without evidence of actually witnessing any beating.
Full marks for spotting it.
Disclaimer: I am not saying Hamilton can't be beaten, or there isn't someone who can. That's down to opinion, I just don't believe SURMISING that someone can, because they are also good drivers, is sufficient to prove it;
surmise
səˈmʌɪz/Submit
verb
1.
suppose that something is true without having evidence to confirm it.