« The regressive red herring | Main | Self-deception & the undeserving rich »

October 23, 2010

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451cbef69e20133f548630c970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Dorries paradox:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Rob Spear

The '70% fiction' remark might be one of her fictional statements of course.

Also, is fiction necessarily 100% false? My understanding is that it is meant to hint at deeper truths, so perhaps while the obvious meaning of a fictional statement might be false, logical consequences of that statement might have a higher chance of being true...

Francis Sedgemore

I’m afraid, Chris, that Rob Spear has exposed the fatal flaw in your reasoning. Bayes’ theorem is an occasionally useful tool for analysing real world as opposed to idealised scenarios, but therein lies the rub. For the results of a Bayesian analysis to make any quantitative sense, the input data cannot themselves be subject to a priori assumptions.

MPilf? Let it be known that I have absolutely no desire to fuck Nadine Dorries.

Phil

"our MPilf"

You speak for yourself, pal.

TR

Chris, 6he latent misogyny in so many of your posts is really quite tedious.

Mr Eugenides

I have to say that you lost me at the word "MPilf"...

Stu

"If you want to support Osborne you must regard Dorries as a nonsensical figure, who’s utterances have as much meaning as the barking of a mad dog"

To be fair Chris, that could be said to apply equally well to any other subject you care to name...

The comments to this entry are closed.

Why S&M?

Blog powered by Typepad