> I don't think the argument I was addressing can be summed up as "X has worked". It's more like "X has happened, therefore X is an inevitable consequence of Y which preceded it."
You are splitting hairs now. The point I am making is that frequently on this site observations are discounted immediately as survorship bias. It almost as if it the only one people know.
It simply isn't survorship bias if something been going on for hundreds of years in a particular direction.
> Also, tropes are often tropes for a reason. You can't dismiss something just because it comes up often.
I am dismissing it because it doesn't make sense and it is frequently overused. Thus the hammer and nail analogy.
In any event it pointless continuing this discussion further. So lets just leave it.
