3 ms·
No...I don't think it works that way. You can't bootstrap the likelihood of one hypothesis by proposing a counterhypothesis. The existence of the Easter Bunny d
by cybersnowflake 7y ago
No...I don't think it works that way. You can't bootstrap the likelihood of one hypothesis by proposing a counterhypothesis. The existence of the Easter Bunny doesn't become more likely because someone hypothesizes that there is a global conspiracy to cover up the existence of said Bunny.
BTW, the 'false accusation' movement in sofar as it exists is a drop in the bucket compared to the sexism victimhood industry.
- SantalBlush 7y ago>sexism victimhood industry This is your hypothesis, which illustrates my point perfectly. You are not merely refuting the existence of a certain degree of sexual harassment, but you're hypothesizing that a "sexism victimhood industry" exists. The fluff about "hypothesis" and "scientific thinking" is just useful subterfuge.
- cybersnowflake 7y agoYes, I made an additional point but that doesn't invalidate the main response that a bigger burden of proof than men/women are different == MUST BE GLOBAL THERMONUCULAR SEXISM is on its feminist advocates. If you're upset that I think the sexism victimhood industry is bigger than its opposition you can set me straight on how billions of dollars over decades, tony institutes, college majors, federal/state regulations, corporate campaigns etc etc are equaled or exceeded by a few neckbeards complaining on Roosh.com.
- SantalBlush 7y agoIt absolutely does invalidate the main response, as was my original point. Your position isn't neutral or scientific; erroneously bringing hypothesis testing into the discussion is an attempt at appearing objective, and nothing more.
- cybersnowflake 7y agoOkay, I'll bite...tell me how the burden of proof is not on those postulating a global conspiracy of sexism?