3 ms·
> there is no reason to believe people haven't gotten smarter as well. Null hypothesis? By default we don't assume presence of changes, in the absence of reaso
by avmich 6y ago
> there is no reason to believe people haven't gotten smarter as well.
Null hypothesis? By default we don't assume presence of changes, in the absence of reasons for that, and those reasons - that nutrition is causing IQ growth - need to be explained.
There shouldn't be no reasons not to assume something, it's not enough. Sorry for triple negative.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> By default we don't assume presence of changes, This isn’t a by default issue, this is claiming counterevidence to increase in intelligence that justifies rejecting the validity of IQ in measuring intelligence because it is increasing. The null hypothesis doesn’t support that, only independent evidence of intelligence not increasing would.
- porb121 6y agoby default we assume nothing, not a lack of change or interaction. to do the latter is to assert.