BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: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.
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: October 31, 2026, 4:45 pm
Thread Rating:
|
Did guns or vaccines save more lives in 2021?
|
 (January 16, 2023 at 1:19 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote:BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: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.
"For the only way to eternal glory is a life lived in service of our Lord, FSM; Verily it is FSM who is the perfect being the name higher than all names, king of all kings and will bestow upon us all, one day, The great reclaiming" -The Prophet Boiardi-
Conservative trigger warning.
![[Image: s-l640.jpg]](https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/DjAAAOSwpIhe1HCM/s-l640.jpg)  (January 16, 2023 at 1:19 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote:BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: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
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
(January 16, 2023 at 2:05 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:(January 16, 2023 at 1:19 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote: 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. 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."?  Quote: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.
"Change was inevitable"
Nemo sicut deus debet esse! ![[Image: Canada_Flag.jpg?v=1646203843]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=cdn.shopify.com%2Fs%2Ffiles%2F1%2F0630%2F5310%2F3332%2Fproducts%2FCanada_Flag.jpg%3Fv%3D1646203843) “No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?” –SHIRLEY CHISHOLM
I repeat. Bad science isn't a replacement for no science and bad research isn't a replacement for no research.
"Change was inevitable"
Nemo sicut deus debet esse! “No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?” –SHIRLEY CHISHOLM (January 17, 2023 at 8:06 am)FlatAssembler Wrote:(January 16, 2023 at 2:05 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: 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. 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
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
