The new Viper changes are great

[CKNovel]

They aren't right though, simply because they have incomplete data. You can't judge a person's ability based on out of context, fragmented information. Full stop. I don't even know how this is even an argument.

Furthermore, yesterday someone like-minded to them tried to use this same argument against me using a grey parse on a job I never played while ignoring my reaper had orange parses. So they aren't even using it "objectively" like they claim.

There's incomplete data and data manipulation, those are two different things.
Even if the data is incomplete, the person is completely free to provide its own data.

That's basic 101 burden of proof. You make a claim, you back it up with a proof. You want to make a counter-claim, you bring your own proof.

[W00by]

They aren't right though, simply because they have incomplete data. You can't judge a person's ability based on out of context, fragmented information. Full stop. I don't even know how this is even an argument.

Furthermore, yesterday someone like-minded to them tried to use this same argument against me using a grey parse on a job I never played while ignoring my reaper had orange parses. So they aren't even using it "objectively" like they claim.

This gives mad "my girlfriend goes to another school. You wouldn't know her though. And you don't go to that school so you can't prove she doesn't exist" energy.

By a purely scientific definition, yes, I cannot PROVE you are bad if your logs aren't public (even though the ones that are don't look great). But I can make an educated guess -- a "hypothesis," if we're being scientific -- about the absence of something (skill in this case) when there's an absence of evidence, and you getting kinda salty about it makes me feel even more assured in that conclusion. Post the vid!!!

There's incomplete data and data manipulation, those are two different things.
Even if the data is incomplete, the person is completely free to provide its own data.

That's basic 101 burden of proof. You make a claim, you back it up with a proof. You want to make a counter-claim, you bring your own proof.

Right? It's so obvious. I could say "I'm definitely a doctor so you should trust my medical opinion. But I won't show you my doctorate. You can definitely trust that it exists though. I went 'try-hard' in Med School."

(i really should stop but they make it easy)

[Eudyptes]

This gives mad "my girlfriend goes to another school. You wouldn't know her though. And you don't go to that school so you can't prove she doesn't exist" energy.

By a purely scientific definition, yes, I cannot PROVE you are bad if your logs aren't public (even though the ones that are don't look great). But I can make an educated guess -- a "hypothesis," if we're being scientific -- about the absence of something (skill in this case) when there's an absence of evidence, and you getting kinda salty about it makes me feel even more assured in that conclusion. Post the vid!!!



Right? It's so obvious. I could say "I'm definitely a doctor so you should trust my medical opinion. But I won't show you my doctorate. You can definitely trust that it exists though. I went 'try-hard' in Med School."

(i really should stop but they make it easy)

You guys are unironically the most smooth brain people on this forum. First of all, by your own metric I've passed your test. So there shouldn't even be a debate about that. Second, and I cannot be more clear about this YOU CANNOT USE INCOMPLETE DATA WITHOUT CONTEXT AS PROOF OF SKILL. This is literally the "I've dipped a cup into the ocean. There are no fish in the cup, so I've concluded there are no fish in the ocean" scenario.

You are not nearly as smart as you think you are, my guy.

[W00by]

You guys are unironically the most smooth brain people on this forum. First of all, by your own metric I've passed your test. So there shouldn't even be a debate about that. Second, and I cannot be more clear about this YOU CANNOT USE INCOMPLETE DATA WITHOUT CONTEXT AS PROOF OF SKILL. This is literally the "I've dipped a cup into the ocean. There are no fish in the cup, so I've concluded there are no fish in the ocean" scenario.

You are not nearly as smart as you think you are, my guy.

Have you ever heard of what it means for a study to be "peer-reviewed?" It means a crowd of your peers takes a look at your study and decides whether or not they think it's founded.

In this case, you have published your study without publishing your sources. Your peers are going to read your study and go "where are the sources?"

If you say "I won't let you see them" or "They don't exist," your argument is groundless.

We are your peers in this case. We looked at your sources and found them lacking. You don't get to tell us whether the data that isn't there would be valid or helpful because it isn't there. We drew a conclusion based on an absence of evidence.

And there's nothing you can do to stop it. Not even bolding or italicizing your text. (Maybe try underlining it next time?)

I'd love to meet your girlfriend, by the way. Shame she goes to another school.

[Eudyptes]

Have you ever heard of what it means for a study to be "peer-reviewed?" It means a crowd of your peers takes a look at your study and decides whether or not they think it's founded.

In this case, you have published your study (your opinion) without publishing your sources. Your peers are going to read your study (your opinion) and go "where are the sources?"

If you say "I won't let you see them" or "They don't exist," your argument is groundless.

We are your peers in this case. We looked at your sources and found them lacking. You don't get to tell us whether the data that isn't there would be valid or helpful because it isn't there. We drew a conclusion based on an absence of evidence.

And there's nothing you can do to stop it. Not even bolding or italicizing your text. (Maybe try underlining it next time?)

I'd love to meet your girlfriend, by the way. Shame she goes to another school.

Wtf are you talking about peer reviewing for? My only opinion here was that your logical conclusion is dumb because you don't know how data works. That's just a straight up fact. I said nothing about classes. You attack people for "low parses" but refuse to accept the "high parses" because it's inconvenient to your argument and ignore the fact when making your conclusion that you don't have all the information. You took a cup of water and decided that was enough.

[W00by]

Wtf are you talking about peer reviewing for? My only opinion here was that your logical conclusion is dumb because you don't know how data works. That's just a straight up fact. I said nothing about classes. You attack people for "low parses" but refuse to accept the "high parses" because it's inconvenient to your argument and ignore the fact when making your conclusion that you don't have all the information. You took a cup of water and decided that was enough.

I don't have all the evidence, so if we're talking about the burden of proof, you haven't met it. And if you haven't cleared the burden of proof, I have no choice but to discard your argument.

In the case of this "cup of water" situation, if you're trying to prove there ARE fish in the sea, you have the ability to scoop up more and more water 'til you find one. And you're trying to prove you ARE skillful, so you should keep on scoopin' til you find some logs.

YOU are the one stopping at the cup. If you wanna provide more evidence, I am aaaaall ears, my friend. But 'til you can, you haven't met the burden, and you're shouting into the wind.

[Eudyptes]

I don't have all the evidence, so if we're talking about the burden of proof, you haven't met it. And if you haven't cleared the burden of proof, I have no choice but to discard your argument.

In the case of this "cup of water" situation, if you're trying to prove there ARE fish in the sea, you have the ability to scoop up more and more water 'til you find one. And you're trying to prove you ARE skillful, so you should keep on scoopin' til you find some logs.

YOU are the one stopping at the cup. If you wanna provide more evidence, I am aaaaall ears, my friend. But 'til you can, you haven't met the burden, and you're shouting into the wind.

But how have YOU met the burden of proof with your claim? You were the first one to make a claim. I used the exact same evidence you used to discredit what you said. You can't just decide it's good enough for you but not for me. My ONLY claim in this entire thread was "you cannot come up with a reasonable conclusion based on data that are low sample sizes and without context". Which is absolutely true.