(October 5, 2021 at 3:10 am)Ghetto Sheldon Wrote: Atheists who argue against generalizing with an epidemiologist
are as ignorant as a YEC arguing against a biologist.
When science conflicts with fight club logic, guess who wins?
A generalization goes on a distribution curve which already accounts for outliers.
A NAXALT argument is derailing & defensive. Outliers don't disprove the existence of the observable /measurable.
IF you don't understand this^^, then a learning curve is to be anticipated.
Successful generalizations afford reliable predictions which affords odds ratios/risk factors. Generalizing is a science for a reason.
That generalizations get exploited is a social services issue and not an epidemiologist's problem.
I can say atheists argue against doing the science we need to do for offering theists our finest. The trend is so predictable, I can put my money where my mouth is and bet on the manner of the next 20 atheists responding.
That atheists don't see the absurdity of arguing against generalizing w/ an epidemiologist speaks volumes.
We are mirroring theist ignorance in nature/not details
PLEASE NOTE: instead of noting irrelevant, off topic , dodging responses for what they are, they will be ignored.
What is the generalization that you feel many atheists argue against?
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.
