I have long used the framework of rejecting claims without evidence. But by extension, that groups claims into rejected and not-rejected.
But I'm not sure how standard that framework is in the skeptical community. Accepting that some categorization of claims occurs, is it more common to use more than two? Do people prefer rejected, unproven, and proven?
Further, I'm not even sure where I heard the binary grouping I gravitated to. It feels like it was borrowed from, "rejecting the null hypothesis." But I'm not sure. Is anyone familiar with any debates about claim categorization?
But I'm not sure how standard that framework is in the skeptical community. Accepting that some categorization of claims occurs, is it more common to use more than two? Do people prefer rejected, unproven, and proven?
Further, I'm not even sure where I heard the binary grouping I gravitated to. It feels like it was borrowed from, "rejecting the null hypothesis." But I'm not sure. Is anyone familiar with any debates about claim categorization?
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/uIMGilP
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire