Yes, that is indeed what it is. I wasn't using weasel words to claim my assertion was based on empirical evidence. I'm just sharing my own perception and I'm a little bothered by the implication that I somehow have to provide citations in order to simply share my perspective.
You've made a really strong claim that they have an "incredibly high false positive rate".
Then you've just thrown "I sense" in front of it all to make it okay that you're basing that on zero evidence.
If you think they've got an "incredibly" high false positive rate you should go do the work to have some kind of factual evidence to base that on.
Yes, that's being used as a contextual qualifier. "I sense" = this is my personal opinion, not an assertion of objective fact.
>"If you think they've got an "incredibly" high false positive rate you should go do the work to have some kind of factual evidence to base that on."
Why? Do you have some evidence this is a bad thing? If you think my use of "I sense" is harmful, you should go do the work and provide some factual evidence to back up your position. I see no citations.
well, if you believe science has any value then we might agree on this <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method>
Truth be told, though, I feel like your statement is insinuating that I somehow don't value science. Or, that I've never heard of the scientific method?
My main point of frustration is how people are expecting a level of rigor that isn't congruent with the medium. This is a forum, not an academic journal or a policy-making body. I don't know if "reverse gish gallop" has been coined yet, but I sense that when one finds someone they disagree with they can adopt the mindset that everything that person has said must be backed up with a citation. Virtually no one is equipped to perform a dissertation defense on a forum post, so demanding an ever increasing list of evidence is an effective means of discrediting the content without actually engaging with it.
People holding opinions without any evidence is a modern plague, you shouldn't be defending it.
Just do some work to have a basis for your opinions. It is intellectually lazy not to do so, and you've got the Internet, Google and Wikipedia to help you get started, you don't even need to leave your couch and physically go down to a Library.
What's your basis for this? Show me your work.
How can it be a valid objection if you've provided zero evidence to back it up? You are the one who decries a lack of supporting evidence, yet you've provided none in any of your replies so far. Particularly: "holding opinions without any evidence is a modern plague" because it looks a lot like a personal opinion of yours with zero presented evidence to back it up.
It wouldn't need a name if it wasn't common.
And here's a book on it for you:
In any event, this is getting more and more contentious and we should probably all just leave things be.
NB: don't take it personally or feel bad, it's just a random interweb guy's disagreement!