Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9107102" data-attributes="member: 6790260">No. Not even a little. Again, read what I said. I repeatedly said we couldn't make assumptions, that we had to avoid claims.No! That's not at all what I said!I said that we couldn't assume that they ARE so limited. That is completely different. It is the difference between the following two statements:(1) "Because we do not know what color the car is, we can be certain that it is not blue unless told otherwise."(2) "Because we do not know what color the car is, we cannot assume that it is red unless told otherwise."The two statements are completely different claims. Your assertion is that we can (indeed, that we should) assume the car IS red until told otherwise ("nothing contradicts...") That is false. We cannot assume any color. We can assume that there is SOME color, but not anything about what that color is. Likewise, we can assume that some kind of limits exist for these fictional humans. But we cannot assume that those limits are identical to IRL human limits simply because that assumption isn't trivially false.No. That is flatly, absolutely wrong. Look it up.When you do hypothesis testing, you DO NOT "prove" the null hypothesis. Instead, you formulate the null and alternative hypotheses, and then perform the test. This generates a probability estimate for the chance of a type 1 error. A type 1 error is when you reject the null hypothesis incorrectly (a "false positive," though that term can be misleading, so be careful.) Before doing the test, you set a threshold level where if the probability of a type 1 error is low enough, you're willing to accept that risk. Generally, the typical chosen value is p=0.05, a 1 in 20 chance of committing a type 1 error (though in some places it's much stricter, particle physics for example has notoriously high standards.)But all you can do is either reject or not reject. You cannot actually "prove" the null hypothesis. All you can do is say that the evidence does not compel you to reject the null. You never actually know if the null hypothesis is true! You just don't know that it is false. Which is exactly what I have been saying.We don't know what the limits of these fantasy humans are. Thus, any claim, any design, which is dependent on assuming that they definitely do have the limits IRL humans have unless we are explicitly told otherwise, is not kosher.You must, in fact, actually show that something is true first. Not merely claim that, because we haven't shown it to be false, it must be true.</blockquote>

Verification