None of this has to do with article, which makes a very simple point about statistics.
I am addressing a 'how is this ad hom' question not Friedman's character or the article. I seek to explain what view of him would be a critique of character not substance.
Comments
I am addressing a 'how is this ad hom' question not Friedman's character or the article. I seek to explain what view of him would be a critique of character not substance.
It isn't an adhom because it is irrelevant.
This isn't a very good line of reasoning because it's a non sequiteur. At this point I think you're trolling more than discussing rationally.
It is an article about a statistical concept.