4 ms·
> you offer no evidence to support whether it is true or not. The point is that it illustrates the study may not have taken such considerations into account. I
by stevenhuang 7y ago
> you offer no evidence to support whether it is true or not.
The point is that it illustrates the study may not have taken such considerations into account. It calls to question the accuracy and efficacy of their results.
- xyzzyz 7y agoThere are and will always be considerations not taken into account. Raising them is thus a fully general counterargument, and as such is best ignored. If you don't want your potential confounders be ignored, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence that these confounders actually matter.
- dwaltrip 7y agoThere isn't a general case rule you can apply here to determine burden of proof. If the target domain is incredibly complex with major fundamental unknowns, then even robust results should not be viewed as 100% definitive.
- mokus 7y agoIMO the “burden of proof” is a mostly vacuous concept to begin with, because it always and only ever lies with the party that wishes to change others’ minds.
- solidsnack9000 7y agoWhat you said is basically “the one who asserts must prove”, an old standard way to describe the burden of proof.
- AstralStorm 7y agoBecause it's reasonable. You cannot disprove what has no evidence, and why should you look for it, other than normal single good science "college try" check? It's a great way to waste time. If the concept is not obvious, the onus is even more on the person bringing it up. Otherwise we'd still have physics running on phlogiston, and medicine on leeches as everyone explored irrelevant ideas.
- solidsnack9000 7y agoIt is a good practice to not view results as 100% definitive and be willing to revise your ideas in the light of disconfirming observations — just not in the light of disconfirming stories.