Re: green bubble syndrome

On 2024-10-12, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

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.

That's glaringly obvious to anyone with a room temperature IQ, me
thinks.

The website used a professional outfit called pollfish.
https://www.pollfish.com/

It's just a polling website. 🤣

I don't know them, but on balance I trust them

Blind trust is not a good look.

more than JR's random anecdotes or poor maths skills.

Baseless insults show your true bias.

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...

Your damned right we can. Will the trolls follow suit?

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR