Let the truth be told

>>2506347

So for example you are saying height isn't quantifiable and we should just make the height of doorways 3ft or whatever other random height we felt like?

>>2506358
Height is certainly quantifiable, however for example the way in which a schizophrenic person hallucinates this would be impossible.

>>2506374
>Height is certainly quantifiable

Well then what was your point?

Are you suggesting that there is no quantitative aspect to a schizophrenic individual's hallucinating experience?

>>2506434
This is all depending on specific situations.

>>2506374
I stated that there were simply "many" cases where it's silly to try to quantify them.

>>2506506

Why don't you give us a clue what you are on about with some proper real world examples. I don't think, for example, anyone is making policy on doorway height based on the hallucinations of schizophrenics.

Communicate what the hell you are talking about.

>>2506518
The doorway height and schizophrenic thing was not related at all.

I'm on about the fact that statistical averages are used way too often in the real world. I shouldn't have to provide examples for that, they're all around you. Study the data, then determine if the average is even a relevant factor.

>>2506543

You should name one relevant, significant example to at least establish a baseline

rather than rambling about hypotheticals

>>2506576
No, because you'll make an attempt to quantify it and then troll the thread by saying it's logical.

>>2506347
The mean, median and mode is middle school math. Just because some nuphilosopher sophist glossed over it doesn't invalidate statistics.

>>2506543

So you can't provide a single example demonstrating what you are on about and you don't sound like you have a clue how averages are even calculated given that the only "example" you gave was a hypothetical one using the arithmetic mean to calculate from a data set of just two.

>>2506770
If you can't think of any example yourself you're just choosing not to try.

>>2506769
I'm just defining when it's relevant.

"In many cases statistical averages are more important than individual experiences.

If you have person A who has experience "1", and person B who has experience "5", it's bumfuckinfly retarded to make a policy for either 1 or 5, when it hasn't been experienced by both people and each individual experience is so much closer to the average of "3" than they are to each other. It would be arbitrary.

Humans are almost always quantifiable.

If you disagree, you're saying you should make policy on an arbitrary choice between one or another experience. You must consider the statistical factors."

There now we both look like assholes making shit up without knowledge or accompanying examples.

>>2506805
Yours works in the cases where quantifiable means can fit the situation.

You seem to not be grasping the idea of "non-quantifiable". And before you say "hurr durr the world is math" consider that there may be missing or unknown operators.