Re: green bubble syndrome

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:

On 2024-10-12 10:22, Chris wrote:

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

 

No. That's not how the burden of proof works. The person (or in this
case, the website) making the claim is responsible for proving their
methodology is sound. And absent of that proof, the rest of us are
completely within our right to disregard it as baseless. This really
shouldn't need to be explained to educated adults, but here we are.
 

 
You've completely misapplied burden of proof.
 
This isn't an unsubstantiated claim where burden of proof would apply.
There is proof/evidence here: the result of the survey.
 
You are welcome to disagree with it, but if you want to make an
unsubstantiated claim that it is meaningless the onus is now on you.

 
The burden is with the survey "maker" to publish method, selection, etc.
for peer review.

This isn't a scientific study. It's a survey. The website used a
professional outfit called pollfish.
https://www.pollfish.com/

I don't know them, but on balance I trust them more than JR's random
anecdotes or poor maths skills.

If such does not come forth, then the survey is useless as presented for
the purpose presented and the audience here.
>
Can we abandon this subject please?

We can...