Two wrongs don't make a right... And I still maintain that this is even worse.
Paul Graham's article was certainly one of his weakest (though not quite as bad as http://paulgraham.com/prcmc.html imho), but at least he doesn't claim to be scientific while thumbing his nose at any sort of scientific rigour. Claiming to be scientific while being the opposite is worse than just being non-scientific.
Paul Graham's article was certainly one of his weakest (though not quite as bad as http://paulgraham.com/prcmc.html imho), but at least he doesn't claim to be scientific while thumbing his nose at any sort of scientific rigour. Claiming to be scientific while being the opposite is worse than just being non-scientific.