Re:David Rosenhan’s fraudulent Thud experiment set back psyc...
by joshuamorton on Sunday January 26, 2020 @11:19PM
(#22156827)
Then they did, and you've called that evidence unconvincing. But it is still evidence. More than the zero you've gotten (or requested) from the original claim.
Re:David Rosenhan’s fraudulent Thud experiment set back psyc...
by jamesrcole on Sunday January 26, 2020 @11:23PM
(#22156839)
No, I did not see any evidence there at all, and I wrote my comment on the basis of that.
Having seen the subsequent replies, I can now see how other people have taken it as a form of evidence.
While I can now see why other people might consider it evidence for the claim, I do not consider it to be such myself (in the sense of 'evidence' being something that supports a claim).
What I did was not simply asking a person to back up a claim they made. If that was the case you could call me out for inconsistency.
I was responding to a person who had claimed to have provided some evidence that they had not actually given.
I responded to a sentence that was presenting a claim, and also implying that the evidence for their claim was given earlier in their comment, which I did not believe was the case.
That sentence was: "So no, OP, academics who didn't support trans politics weren't scared off by the community".
That 'So no' implies that the evidence for the claim has been given earlier in their comment. I did not see any evidence in their comment, so I asked if they could provide some.