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?
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.
Comments
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?
I did not make this claim. I’ll restate my position so we’re clear: I have no idea whether they’re connected.
This is still a claim which requires evidence.
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.