Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words (view source)

Revision as of 21:51, January 31, 2013

554 bytes added ,  21:51, January 31, 2013
→‎Conservative Words hypothesis is errant: The selection of terms need not be random to conclude that a doubling by century intrinsically exists. Think about why.
Line 576: Line 576:  
::::Another problem: Over the last year, I saw  examples of "perfect doublings" announced a couple of times. That seems to be rather improbable, statistically speaking, and indicates a manipulation of the data (confirmation bias) - as User:Conservative stated above.
 
::::Another problem: Over the last year, I saw  examples of "perfect doublings" announced a couple of times. That seems to be rather improbable, statistically speaking, and indicates a manipulation of the data (confirmation bias) - as User:Conservative stated above.
 
::::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:01, 31 January 2013 (EST)
 
::::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:01, 31 January 2013 (EST)
 +
 +
:::::The fact that a perfect doubling has occurred many times with different layers tends to support, rather than undermine, the hypothesis that a perfect doubling is inherent in the language.  Otherwise it would be very difficult for each layer to display a perfect doubling too!
 +
 +
:::::Many stumble on the issue of whether the selection of terms is perfectly random.  The selection of terms need not be random to conclude that a doubling by century intrinsically exists.  Think about why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:51, 31 January 2013 (EST)
Aschlafly
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,204

edits

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:MobileDiff/1032368"

Navigation menu