6 ms·
Hypothesis without some evidence are quite literally baseless speculation; if there were evidence, it wouldn't be baseless.
by gnaritas 9y ago
Hypothesis without some evidence are quite literally baseless speculation; if there were evidence, it wouldn't be baseless.
- TimTheTinker 9y agoThere _was_ preliminary evidence for OP’s hypothesis.
- gnaritas 9y agoNo, there was his judgement of the results as partisan, that is not evidence. Thinking you see bias is not the same thing as finding evidence of bias.
- TimTheTinker 9y agoHis judgment of the results as partisan wasn’t evidence of anything except perhaps his own bias. That was his hypothesis based on his one observation. Hypotheses are allowed to be biased as long as they’re tested before becoming anything more. The evidence (however preliminary) was the fact that nearly all of Pro Publica’s cited rulings were in favor of conservatives.
- gnaritas 9y ago> The evidence (however preliminary) was the fact that nearly all of Pro Publica’s cited rulings were in favor of conservatives. I'd still call that opinion, not evidence. A conservative might say those rulings were in favor of reason, not partisan. See, an alternate opinion.
- TimTheTinker 9y agoYou’re quibbling about words. If we can’t agree that one side favors a particular viewpoint over the other in a given civil case, any further discussion about the presence or absence of political bias in the ruling or selection of the ruling is impossible.
- gnaritas 9y ago> You’re quibbling about words. So are you, this whole thread is you quibbling about words.