> Why would lacking in evidence and rigor be considered a plus?
The point it’s making is about heuristics rather than theoretical complexity. Tim Peters provided plenty of evidence and rigorous work when he proposed it.
That you interpret it as “lack of evidence and rigor” is really about you.
The point it’s making is about heuristics rather than theoretical complexity. Tim Peters provided plenty of evidence and rigorous work when he proposed it.
That you interpret it as “lack of evidence and rigor” is really about you.