You're right, the "just about every" is unproveable. But you can't win the argument that nausea and vomiting isn't a concern by saying that the use of "just about every discussion" is wrong, and if you've decided to focus on that aspect you've now switched the topic. I doubt very much the original author intended that to be a scientific fact, and more of a expression of its prevalence. Where some see accuracy others see pedantry and an attempt to exclude an otherwise point simply because of inaccurate language. Also, I didn't attempt to defend the "every", but instead re-frame the claim in more balanced terms, which proves that, at least for some, it's a concern.
> You're right, the "just about every" is unproveable.
(This looks like another assertion! But I digress.)
I don't recall saying that. In fact, my actual words convey the exact opposite meaning (at least to my interpretation):
>> I challenge you to attempt to [prove] your [assertion] with evidence. If you make an attempt, you will quickly realize that you are [objectively incorrect].
Perhaps something was lost in translation along the way? Having a very open mind, I am a big believer that such ambitious things (and many more!) are possible, but such optimistic ideas seem to not be very popular nowadays. Under certain scenarios at least.
But anyways....are you sure?
I can agree, at least not with the explicit specifications we currently have. But then again, it wasn't my assertion, so why is it I who must bear the burden of these shortcomings? Does that seems fair? Or, am I looking at it wrong?
Here is how I would approach this sort of a problem - I like to first put on my thinking cap, and think, much as one might do when writing code at work.
The assertion: "You'll [find] [nausea and vomiting] in [[just about] [every] [discussion]] [about consuming psilocybin mushrooms]."
I've added some highlights around words and phrases, in an attempt to facilitate more precise communication over this limited medium.
Of course, one would have to manually determine the values for [subjectHitCount] and [totalDiscussionCount], but I hope we can leave it at the pseudocode in my prior comment?
Wait a minute. I've arbitrarily decided what the interpretation of "just about every" is. Who do I think I am!!!
We can't look it up, because there's no commonly accepted meaning. What to do!
Now, you and @colechristensen can decide among yourselves what an acceptable value is for [percentageCutoff] - I'm not concerned about that aspect of it.
> But you can't win the argument [that nausea and vomiting isn't a concern] by saying that the use of "just about every discussion" is wrong...
100% correct, and I am in complete agreement.
> ...and if you've decided to focus on that aspect [you've now switched the topic].
Oh? Is it I who've switched the topic? (Also...is this yet another assertion? Oh, never mind.)
By my reading of this thread, it seems to me that that assertion was higher up in the thread. Specifically, here:
(You may also note that I received no response to my rebuttal. But I did receive a downvote, so that's something!)
The assertion we are actually dealing with in this sub-thread, is: "You'll find nausea and vomiting in just about every discussion about consuming psilocybin mushrooms."
Perhaps I should have explicitly quoted the assertion so as to minimize that possibility for misinterpretation. I will try to be more precise in the future. But then on the other hand, being precise seems (as far as I can tell, which is not very well judging by voting and responses) to be not terribly popular around here, despite it being a forum consisting of a high concentration of developers.
> I doubt very much the original author intended that to be a scientific fact, and more of a expression of its prevalence.
Is this my fault as well? If no meaning can be accurately derived from a statement, and reasonable inferences are not allowed, then what is the point of engaging in conversations at all using this language? Just for fun? (And I mean that question literally.)
