undefined | Better HN

0 pointsangoragoats1y ago0 comments

Then your claim lacks any supporting evidence, and that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I can think of about 10 different ways that the information in your YouTube video could be 100% true and correct, and the FAA could still be at fault. You do not have enough evidence to claim what you're saying.

0 comments

listenallyall1y ago

The burden of proof is on you, making the claim that the FAA chief and the crash are connected. What's your evidence? I'm advancing the null hypothesis, that they have nothing to do with each other. I also don't believe the Eagles winning the NFC Championship 2 days earlier has anything do with the crash -- are you expecting me to provide evidence for that as well?

angoragoatsOP1y ago

> The burden of proof is on you, making the claim that the FAA chief and the crash are connected. What's your evidence?

I did not make this claim. I’ll restate my position so we’re clear: I have no idea whether they’re connected.

> I'm advancing the null hypothesis, that they have nothing to do with each other.

This is still a claim which requires evidence.

> I also don't believe the Eagles winning the NFC Championship 2 days earlier has anything do with the crash -- are you expecting me to provide evidence for that as well?

In general, evidence is required for any claim, yes. But in this case, something like “The Philadelphia Eagles are a football team, without any responsibility over airline safety” is probably enough evidence.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse