The new Viper changes are great

[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.

[W00by]

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.

I think I've met the burden quite nicely, actually! MY claim is that you probably aren't skillful because there's no evidence that demonstrates such a thing, and therefore your supposed expertise on a subject is less valuable than the expertise of those who ARE able to demonstrate such expertise. All I have to do is explain that it's totally fine to say that it's highly probable something doesn't exist if there's 0 evidence pointing toward its existence -- especially when someone is actively trying to obfuscate any evidence that could point one way or another.

You're asking people to say it's possible Bigfoot could be real just because no one has objectively disproven it. Or that your girlfriend from another school is totally real because I can't know who she is.

People are fair to draw their conclusions about you based on an ABSENCE of data. Taking this idea to its extreme, if our characters weren't posted on our profile, no one could objectively PROVE that I'm not Sfia Pirion or Xenosys Vex or that I didn't World First this raid tier i totally did you guys. But if I refused to prove it after you asked me to, would you believe me? (Or maybe this is my alt and I DID world first. how crazy would that be.) Maybe I can't prove it because I don't have enough data, or maybe I can't prove it because I'm a liar, but I still can't prove it.

Like, dude, we get that the sample sizes are low and without context. But them not being there is still reasonable cause to believe that you don't really know what you're talking about. Like, I could claim to be a rich lawyer who graduated top of my class from Harvard Law, but if I'm unwilling or unable to prove that, then no one has to believe me. And no one has to believe you, regardless of the lack of data. "Ummm acshually u can't PROVE I'm not the GOAT *pushes up glasses*."

I've demonstrated my point to anyone with a functional cerebral cortex I think, so this will be my last reply related to this particular subject.