(January 28, 2023 at 7:50 pm)brewer Wrote:(January 28, 2023 at 4:05 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote: OK, fine, they are empirical arguments, so maybe they are not logical arguments if we want to be extremely precise.
bold mine
https://nrich.maths.org/6664
excerpt: By empirical arguments I mean those that purport to show the truth of a generalisation by validating the generalisation in a proper subset of all possible cases. These arguments are clearly invalid, because they cannot exclude the possibility of the existence of a counterexample to the generalisation.
Not to be confused with emperical evidence, which the site does not provide. All it is doing is putting forth are unfounded assertions, possible connections. There is no direct cause and effect evidence cited.
That's right, cause and effect is out of scope of that study. All it was trying to show is that the number of athletes who have died suddenly has indeed increased, that it's not just anecdotal evidence.