Did guns or vaccines save more lives in 2021?

[FlatAssembler]

Since no one has refuted this study, let alone conducted one of their own, should we accept my conclusion as a working hypothesis?

What's the alternative? As far as I can see, all the alternatives are even worse. That's why the most scientific thing to do is to accept it. The scientific method does not always lead you to a correct result, but it's the best method we have.

[Nay_Sayer]

Since no one has refuted this study, let alone conducted one of their own, should we accept my conclusion as a working hypothesis?

What's the alternative? As far as I can see, all the alternatives are even worse. That's why the most scientific thing to do is to accept it. The scientific method does not always lead you to a correct result, but it's the best method we have.

No, it isn't. You don't accept bad science because you can't find anything better.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Since no one has refuted this study, let alone conducted one of their own, should we accept my conclusion as a working hypothesis?

What's the alternative? As far as I can see, all the alternatives are even worse. That's why the most scientific thing to do is to accept it. The scientific method does not always lead you to a correct result, but it's the best method we have.

The alternative is to state, ‘Due to the flawed methodology and absurd claims in Boru’s ‘On The Meaning Of Facial Expressions In South American Rodentia’ , we conclude that the meaning of such facial expressions remains unknown. Funding is unavailable for a counter-study at this time.’ The response would be similar in the case of Kleck’s study - we simply don’t know how many lives are saved by gun use.

And THAT, me old mucker, is how science works. Science is not required to accept a dubious claim simply because no one has taken the time and trouble to formally refute it.

Boru

[FlatAssembler]

What's the alternative? As far as I can see, all the alternatives are even worse. That's why the most scientific thing to do is to accept it. The scientific method does not always lead you to a correct result, but it's the best method we have.

The alternative is to state, ‘Due to the flawed methodology and absurd claims in Boru’s ‘On The Meaning Of Facial Expressions In South American Rodentia’ , we conclude that the meaning of such facial expressions remains unknown. Funding is unavailable for a counter-study at this time.’ The response would be similar in the case of Kleck’s study - we simply don’t know how many lives are saved by gun use.

And THAT, me old mucker, is how science works. Science is not required to accept a dubious claim simply because no one has taken the time and trouble to formally refute it.

Boru

So, do you think that The Mad Revisionists are basically right, but that, instead of concluding "The Moon does not exist.", they should say "We do not know whether the Moon exists."?

[The Architect Of Fate]

So, do you think that The Mad Revisionists are basically right, but that, instead of concluding "The Moon does not exist.", they should say "We do not know whether the Moon exists."?

Nope it's bad science isn't a replacement for no science and bad research isn't a replacement for no research.

[FlatAssembler]

So, do you think that The Mad Revisionists are basically right, but that, instead of concluding "The Moon does not exist.", they should say "We do not know whether the Moon exists."?

Nope it's bad science isn't a replacement for no science and bad research isn't a replacement for no research.

So, do you think that the study I recently published in Valpovački Godišnjak and Regionalne Studije is also worse than no science? Even though it is, as far as I know, the only study that attempts to estimate the probability of certain patterns in Croatian names of places appearing by chance?

[The Architect Of Fate]

I repeat. Bad science isn't a replacement for no science and bad research isn't a replacement for no research.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The alternative is to state, ‘Due to the flawed methodology and absurd claims in Boru’s ‘On The Meaning Of Facial Expressions In South American Rodentia’ , we conclude that the meaning of such facial expressions remains unknown. Funding is unavailable for a counter-study at this time.’ The response would be similar in the case of Kleck’s study - we simply don’t know how many lives are saved by gun use.

And THAT, me old mucker, is how science works. Science is not required to accept a dubious claim simply because no one has taken the time and trouble to formally refute it.

Boru

So, do you think that The Mad Revisionists are basically right, but that, instead of concluding "The Moon does not exist.", they should say "We do not know whether the Moon exists."?

Of course I don't, but that's not remotely the same thing. No one seriously questions whether the Moon exists or that firearms do, in fact, save lives.

In the case of the gun study, a dubious conclusion was reached using questionable methodology. Kleck wasn't trying to establish whether guns save lives, but how many lives are saved by gun use. In other words, he was attempting to quantify a known phenomenon.

Similarly, we know the Moon exists. We can see it, people have been there, we have bits of it here on Earth, we can observe the tidal effects of it, etc. The Revisionist aren't doing what Kleck did - they're trying to deny an observed fact. That's way, way, different.

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Nope it's bad science isn't a replacement for no science and bad research isn't a replacement for no research.

So, do you think that the study I recently published in Valpovački Godišnjak and Regionalne Studije is also worse than no science? Even though it is, as far as I know, the only study that attempts to estimate the probability of certain patterns in Croatian names of places appearing by chance?

He's not saying that at all. The point, which you seem to be studiously avoiding, is that no one is required to accept a single study as established fact. As I recall, at least one actual linguist found issues with your paper, no?

I repeat: Simply because no one has formally refuted a particular find doesn't mean that find is irrefutable.

Boru

[FlatAssembler]

No one seriously questions whether the Moon exists or that firearms do, in fact, save lives.

So if guns save lives, how can gun control be justified? I mean, if it is not controversial that some people are going to die because of the new gun control laws, isn't passing that gun control law violating human rights?

As I recall, at least one actual linguist found issues with your paper, no?

You can see her first response when I sent her a manuscript of my paper here.
I am not at all convinced the issues she found are actual issues.

Simply because no one has formally refuted a particular find doesn't mean that find is irrefutable.

But we cannot assume it is refutable either, right? In fact, the burden of proof is on somebody who is claiming the study is refutable.