Thing is, reasonably smart people fall for this same mistake over and over.
I think Claude hits on the issue here - it is the general unwillingness to go back to the actual math and work through the narrowness of its implications.
Instead we start with a popular prose explanation and then argue our points from our understanding of that.
We barely notice when we are using the ambiguity and wiggle room in the prose explanation to argue something that is unsupported by the math.
I think Claude hits on the issue here - it is the general unwillingness to go back to the actual math and work through the narrowness of its implications.
Instead we start with a popular prose explanation and then argue our points from our understanding of that.
We barely notice when we are using the ambiguity and wiggle room in the prose explanation to argue something that is unsupported by the math.