I’ve only responded to you twice. Once to tell you that a biased sample set provides garbage data, and again to tell you I wouldn’t be arguing with someone who didn’t understand the core concepts of the conversation.
They haven’t made any numerical claim. The argument against biased data is a fundamental one. Arguing that someone’s methodology is wrong is not arguing that the opposite of the conclusion is true. They are just saying “Facebook research don’t count”. I don’t know what statistical evidence you need for “Facebook research don’t count”.
floo@retrolemmy.com 3 weeks ago
Well, then you’re welcome to prove that. I await your evidence to support your assertion.
entwine413@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
Nah, I’m not going to argue science and statistics with someone who clearly understands neither.
njm1314@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Going through these comments you’ve not presented one scientific or statistical argument. You’re basically going on vibes.
entwine413@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
I’ve only responded to you twice. Once to tell you that a biased sample set provides garbage data, and again to tell you I wouldn’t be arguing with someone who didn’t understand the core concepts of the conversation.
The vibes thing is quite the projection, though.
Tja@programming.dev 3 weeks ago
They haven’t made any numerical claim. The argument against biased data is a fundamental one. Arguing that someone’s methodology is wrong is not arguing that the opposite of the conclusion is true. They are just saying “Facebook research don’t count”. I don’t know what statistical evidence you need for “Facebook research don’t count”.