Do you often entertain theories you have no evidence for? Does that sound productive?
This is easily explained with the universal experience of research science in biology. Until there is evidence to the contrary, the more likely explanation (by far) is the reasonable course. What you are engaged in is confirmation bias.
What you see fits your preconveived notion that there is something fishy going on. And likely there is. But just because something 'fits' your prefferred bias does not lend credence to that interpretation - you don't get to abandon alternatives merely because your preferred interpretation can't be rejected.
If I believe my wife is cheating on me, and she arrives home late, that is not evidence she is cheating on me. Particularly if everyone who has to take the same freeway home at the same time of night are themselve all, always late because every other day there's a pileup or whatever.
A common experience is not evidence of your theory merely because your theory can't be rejected.
I dont know why you think I have a pre-conceived notion that there was something nefarious going on. I have made it pretty clear that I think there is not enough evidence to judge it at face value.
Do you think there is zero chance there were more test results like this? More importantly. Does it not warrant a skeptical mind? You seem to want to dismiss this flatly based on your experiences. Which means its actually you who has the confirmation bias. You decided it was nothing and thats that. Not even willing to wait for more evidence or verification. You had your mind made up immediately. So, you belive one thing. I belive another.
The reason I accused you of having a confirmation bias is you because the alternative is you being an idiot and I chose to be charitable. I still think you're merely acting on bias by the way.
Do you think there is zero chance there were more test results like this?
Of course not. But I do think there is a 99% chance the reason for it isn't relevant, and a 99.9% chance that while the reason may be relevant, it won'r be relevant enough to have gambled the time chasing down that one inexplicable result you got that week.
You seem to want to dismiss this flatly based on your experiences. Which means its actually you who has the confirmation bias.
Confirmation bias is rejecting more likely alternatives because your preferred explanation fits. I am not rejecting more likely alternatives. I am specifically adopting the likely.
You however are so attached to the legit malfeasence of pfizer that you'll see it even when it doesn't exist. In this case because malfeasence remains a POSSIBLE explanation in this video, no matter how well I describe to you that this as normal, reasonable, and necessary behavior in biological research, you're unwilling to reject your preferrence regardless of how unlikely it is.
This is not evidence of possible malfeasence that should be looked deeper into. This is normal, reasonable, and necessary behavior in science.
Do you often entertain theories you have no evidence for? Does that sound productive?
This is easily explained with the universal experience of research science in biology. Until there is evidence to the contrary, the more likely explanation (by far) is the reasonable course. What you are engaged in is confirmation bias.
What you see fits your preconveived notion that there is something fishy going on. And likely there is. But just because something 'fits' your prefferred bias does not lend credence to that interpretation - you don't get to abandon alternatives merely because your preferred interpretation can't be rejected.
If I believe my wife is cheating on me, and she arrives home late, that is not evidence she is cheating on me. Particularly if everyone who has to take the same freeway home at the same time of night are themselve all, always late because every other day there's a pileup or whatever.
A common experience is not evidence of your theory merely because your theory can't be rejected.
Is that a good example?
I dont know why you think I have a pre-conceived notion that there was something nefarious going on. I have made it pretty clear that I think there is not enough evidence to judge it at face value.
Do you think there is zero chance there were more test results like this? More importantly. Does it not warrant a skeptical mind? You seem to want to dismiss this flatly based on your experiences. Which means its actually you who has the confirmation bias. You decided it was nothing and thats that. Not even willing to wait for more evidence or verification. You had your mind made up immediately. So, you belive one thing. I belive another.
To each his own and the world keeps turning.
Have a fantastic weekend!
The reason I accused you of having a confirmation bias is you because the alternative is you being an idiot and I chose to be charitable. I still think you're merely acting on bias by the way.
Of course not. But I do think there is a 99% chance the reason for it isn't relevant, and a 99.9% chance that while the reason may be relevant, it won'r be relevant enough to have gambled the time chasing down that one inexplicable result you got that week.
Confirmation bias is rejecting more likely alternatives because your preferred explanation fits. I am not rejecting more likely alternatives. I am specifically adopting the likely.
You however are so attached to the legit malfeasence of pfizer that you'll see it even when it doesn't exist. In this case because malfeasence remains a POSSIBLE explanation in this video, no matter how well I describe to you that this as normal, reasonable, and necessary behavior in biological research, you're unwilling to reject your preferrence regardless of how unlikely it is.
This is not evidence of possible malfeasence that should be looked deeper into. This is normal, reasonable, and necessary behavior in science.