4 ms·

"... absolute innate equivalence ..." As was already stated in this thread, this is the null hypothesis. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16397321 https://

by fra 9y ago

"... absolute innate equivalence ..." As was already stated in this thread, this is the null hypothesis. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16397321 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16397321

darawk 9y ago
The comment you linked states the opposite.
- ameister14 9y ago
  I think you may have misread it.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
knorker 9y ago
It's one thing to assume the null hypothesis. Quite another to discard ANY experience or data because it violates the null hypothesis. Damore certainly cited many studies, and while there's valid criticism of their validity, "they disagree with the null hypothesis, ergo they are false" is not right. Nor is "I have not read them, therefore the null hypothesis is right".
- xenadu02 9y ago
  > Damore certainly cited many studies, He did no such thing. Please stop spreading misinformation. He linked to blogs and magazine articles then people started calling his footnotes “research”. The one legit study he linked came to the opposite conclusion of what he claimed. I suggest you go read his links for yourself and consider the sources. It might be illuminating, unless you are already biased in favor of the argument he made.
  - knorker 9y ago
    Just because you don't like his citations doesn't make you right in saying he didn't have them. But first a side-note: Stop changing the subject. I was saying the null hypothesis is irrelevant here. I'm saying don't discard new evidence because it goes against the null hypothesis. A few comments up (and the answer to "why") was said "[I] strongly believe [in the null hypothesis]", which to me is very strange. How can you "strongly believe" in a null hypothesis? I didn't like his references (and stop attacking me, and implying my position), in that you can't just cherry-pick a study you like and call it fact (though doesn't make it wrong. Just unproven). Everyone does this. It doesn't make it right, but stones and glass houses. To understand what you consider legit studies, I randomly clicked on three of his links. At least two of them must not qualify as legit study, so could you explain why you say two or three of these are "blogs and magazines"? I guess you qualify the journal "Science" as unscientific and merely a magazine? So that's one. Mind you, it'd be a real coincidence if the one supposedly legit study he referenced just happened to be in this list of three: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1111/j.1751-9004.... http://science.sciencemag.org/content/310/5749/819 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/310/5749/819 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763412001510?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014976341...

by fra 9y ago

"... absolute innate equivalence ..." As was already stated in this thread, this is the null hypothesis. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16397321 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16397321

darawk 9y ago

The comment you linked states the opposite.

ameister14 9y ago
I think you may have misread it.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

knorker 9y ago

It's one thing to assume the null hypothesis. Quite another to discard ANY experience or data because it violates the null hypothesis. Damore certainly cited many studies, and while there's valid criticism of their validity, "they disagree with the null hypothesis, ergo they are false" is not right. Nor is "I have not read them, therefore the null hypothesis is right".

xenadu02 9y ago
> Damore certainly cited many studies, He did no such thing. Please stop spreading misinformation. He linked to blogs and magazine articles then people started calling his footnotes “research”. The one legit study he linked came to the opposite conclusion of what he claimed. I suggest you go read his links for yourself and consider the sources. It might be illuminating, unless you are already biased in favor of the argument he made.
- knorker 9y ago
  Just because you don't like his citations doesn't make you right in saying he didn't have them. But first a side-note: Stop changing the subject. I was saying the null hypothesis is irrelevant here. I'm saying don't discard new evidence because it goes against the null hypothesis. A few comments up (and the answer to "why") was said "[I] strongly believe [in the null hypothesis]", which to me is very strange. How can you "strongly believe" in a null hypothesis? I didn't like his references (and stop attacking me, and implying my position), in that you can't just cherry-pick a study you like and call it fact (though doesn't make it wrong. Just unproven). Everyone does this. It doesn't make it right, but stones and glass houses. To understand what you consider legit studies, I randomly clicked on three of his links. At least two of them must not qualify as legit study, so could you explain why you say two or three of these are "blogs and magazines"? I guess you qualify the journal "Science" as unscientific and merely a magazine? So that's one. Mind you, it'd be a real coincidence if the one supposedly legit study he referenced just happened to be in this list of three: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1111/j.1751-9004.... http://science.sciencemag.org/content/310/5749/819 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/310/5749/819 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763412001510?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014976341...