Originally Posted by
Polaris OBark
You've now inverted the argument.
Hypothesis proponent: All swans are white.
Observation: I looked at 3 swans. One of them is black.
Hypothesis proponent: The black swan is an outlier, and a conditional-lethal mutant, so It doesn't count.
Observation: I checked 100,000 swans. Of those, 28,578 are black.
Hypothesis Proponent: Well, almost 3/4 of the swans are white, so what's the problem?
Observation: I checked an additional 900,000 swans. Less than 1/10th are white.
Hypothesis Proponent: Well, the swan color hypothesis was only really meant to cover the fraction of swans without pigment.
Observation: The 100,000 white swans are all albino.
I don't know why you are so attached to the frequency question. At this point the main argument is whether this happens at all, with at least half the "academics" on this thread knowingly opining that it is impossible.
Seems to me that it is much more important to demonstrate the underlying mechanisms to everyone's satisfaction before you begin worrying about how often you can make those elements add up to an overall performance effect.
It just seems like a bad faith move to use the lack of a promised statistical result as reason to dismiss what is, at this point, simply a theory based on the experience and documentary evidence collected by one guy. If you want to have something to say about the matter, do the work of testing the idea. Not the hypothesis - the idea. And don't do it because it is important for you to disprove something. That kind of bias isn't science.