>You don't treat every possible hypothesis as potentially valid.
Wrong, you consider and reject hypothesis if we're being specific about the scientific method. In this case, this is a testable question that could be measured but from common metrics isn't accurately measured for humans to compare to. There is no valid rejection of the hypothesis without more data.
The utility of the hypothesis and the work required is one of many things considered and another discussion.
But actually considering and discussing them IS the scientific and rational method. Your knee-jerk reactions are the closest thing to ludditism in this whole conversation.
>And likewise a proper response is emphatically not to respond to an actual measurement within a commonly accepted paradigm (c.f. the linked headline above) with a response like "well this may not be measuring the right thing so I'm going to ignore it". That is pretty much the definition of ludditism.
Again wrong. In almost every case the correct first questions are "are we measuring the right thing", again if we are talking about engineering and science, that's always valid and should ALWAYS be considered. I also never said we should IGNORE crashes, I asked if its the BEST metric for success on its own.
And for your third incorrect point
>That is pretty much the definition of ludditism.
Obviously missed my point in every posts, including the one above. Whether "crashes" is the best metric is being applied to humans and technology, there is no anti-technology going on here.
Your emotional reaction to someone questioning something you obviously care about seems to have shut down your logical brain. Take a deep breath and just stop digging.
Wrong, you consider and reject hypothesis if we're being specific about the scientific method. In this case, this is a testable question that could be measured but from common metrics isn't accurately measured for humans to compare to. There is no valid rejection of the hypothesis without more data.
The utility of the hypothesis and the work required is one of many things considered and another discussion.
But actually considering and discussing them IS the scientific and rational method. Your knee-jerk reactions are the closest thing to ludditism in this whole conversation.
>And likewise a proper response is emphatically not to respond to an actual measurement within a commonly accepted paradigm (c.f. the linked headline above) with a response like "well this may not be measuring the right thing so I'm going to ignore it". That is pretty much the definition of ludditism.
Again wrong. In almost every case the correct first questions are "are we measuring the right thing", again if we are talking about engineering and science, that's always valid and should ALWAYS be considered. I also never said we should IGNORE crashes, I asked if its the BEST metric for success on its own.
And for your third incorrect point
>That is pretty much the definition of ludditism.
Obviously missed my point in every posts, including the one above. Whether "crashes" is the best metric is being applied to humans and technology, there is no anti-technology going on here.
Your emotional reaction to someone questioning something you obviously care about seems to have shut down your logical brain. Take a deep breath and just stop digging.