3 ms·
> Given this study, do you think it is more reasonable a) to think this competition extends to other spheres, or b) to think that it does not. Just following a
by mfisher87 12y ago
> Given this study, do you think it is more reasonable a) to think this competition extends to other spheres, or b) to think that it does not.
Just following along with you guys. B is another claim because it is not disbelief, it is a negative claim:
> b) to think that it does not.
Maybe you misinterpreted it on reading, but it's very clearly not simply disbelief, it is rejection. Neutral disbelief (read: skepticism) would be to take neither position a nor b.
- dikaiosune 12y agoSorry if I wasn't clear, I was more referring to the disbelief/skepticism in the original comment: > The study this observation is derived from only talks about competitions of physical ability. This doesn't say anything about disproving the extrapolation to other areas of competition, it's just pointing out the problem with relying on the cited study for the assertions made. In that sense, I think it's fairly neutral. I tried to make it clear, but probably not clear enough: > B is just skepticism when you paraphrase it fairly. By "paraphrase it fairly," I was referring to proveanegative's comment, when paraphrased in context and while honoring it's implied skepticism, as opposed to rejection. gress had rewritten it as a statement of rejection: > a) to think this competition extends to other spheres, or b) to think that it does not Although now that you point it out, maybe we've been talking past each other. As I stated above, I think it's reasonable to assume based on gut heuristics that this competition extends beyond the gym. However a new burden of evidence is assumed when one cites studies to grant apparent legitimacy to one's argument. I don't think that burden of evidence has been met here.