> I disagree, and we both know there's no clear evidence one way or another I think that the lack of evidence in favor of a strong effect is normally counted i

> I disagree, and we both know there's no clear evidence one way or another I think that the lack of evidence in favor of a strong effect is normally counted in favor of the null hypothesis. It may not feel fair, but the burden of proof is solely on those who claim a strong effect exists, not on those who don't. > but a bad language can do those just as easily as a good language Again, the burden of proof is solely on those who claim there is such a thing as a good language with a strong effect. If you can't display an effect, or claim that others can also induce it by other means is a win for the null hypothesis. If you claim there is such a thing as a "bad" language, and there is no evidence this is true, doing so will harm your cause. > A genuinely better language should have at least a slightly better chance of winning a debate over which language is better. I just don't think that a debate is the right way to establish an empirical claim. It's ok to engage in a debate - even a heated one - but the lack of evidence should at least encourage humility. My point is just that an imagined "win" at a debate only harms your mission. If it convinces anyone, which is highly doubtful, it's probably not the people you want, anyway. An approach that says, "I think this is cool. I like it and it helps me and may help you, too" is so much more effective at marketing than "my way is best" especially if the evidence is not on your side.