2 ms·
How would you like me to define "starting point" in a way that you believe you'll be able to understand? If you are trying to say "more data needed, headline m
by moate 3mo ago
How would you like me to define "starting point" in a way that you believe you'll be able to understand?
If you are trying to say "more data needed, headline misleading" you should say that instead of misrepresenting the 4/5ths rule. Also the word "can" implies uncertainty of conclusion. This isn't ridiculous, the authors point out that this is the first large scale study of this topic. Nothing has been "proven" here, it's showing that this warrants further investigation and attention.
Do you read many academic papers, because you seem to be having a rough go here.
- kolbe 3mo agoYou could be an Iranian sponsored bot. I'm not saying you are. You could be so don't get mad at me for publishing that statement. Because if I say "can," then I don't need to be accountable for any misinformation.
- moate 3mo agoI could be! And in science when you posit a hypothesis you then back it up with data points of statistical significance. The authors of this study have done that here. To borrow from your example, if you saw a statistically significant amount of my posts highlighting the merits of the Iranian government in a ways that run counter to the general global consensus of their actions, you would then have something that other people might agree was worth looking into. A hypothesis is not “misinformation”. This article has not claimed to have proven anything other than outcomes in a process. I don’t understand why this is so upsetting to you.
- kolbe 3mo agoI don't know who you think you're talking to about being upset, but this was exactly the halfwitted "u maaaad" response I would expect from a bot.