Also, beware of committing a fallacy of defective induction, potentially promulgating the kind of bias that leads to type II errors.
In other words, spreading "caution" about making such reasonable assumptions as two famous Sangers (uncommon name) being related may cause more harm than good, by giving onlookers pause about making their own reasonable and innocuous assumptions.
Ah, got it! Yeah, when I read through Larry Sanger's wiki I could not find one single red flag. Actually, the impetus to even post was that it was so striking how vanilla the guy is (not a great turn of phrase, but I think you get it)..
Also, beware of committing a fallacy of defective induction, potentially promulgating the kind of bias that leads to type II errors.
In other words, spreading "caution" about making such reasonable assumptions as two famous Sangers (uncommon name) being related may cause more harm than good, by giving onlookers pause about making their own reasonable and innocuous assumptions.
Depends on your definition of "reasonable", which is here left unspecified.
I just mean I think your assumption was reasonable, even though exploring it turned out to be a dead end.
Ah, got it! Yeah, when I read through Larry Sanger's wiki I could not find one single red flag. Actually, the impetus to even post was that it was so striking how vanilla the guy is (not a great turn of phrase, but I think you get it)..
That is interesting, actually.