@RichardHanania Thank you for engaging and not blocking me! It is increasingly rare to see people on here actually respond to challenging points of view.
I wasnโt familiar w/ the admission against interest principle, but I looked it up and Iโm pretty sure youโre using it wrong.
I wasnโt familiar w/ the admission against interest principle, but I looked it up and Iโm pretty sure youโre using it wrong.
@RichardHanania The idea is that hearsay generally isnโt admissible in court but there are exceptions e.g. when it comes from someone who is damaged by said hearsay.
What the rule doesnโt say is that nobody should believe anything anyone says unless itโs against their interest.
What the rule doesnโt say is that nobody should believe anything anyone says unless itโs against their interest.
@RichardHanania For example testimony under oath is not legally hearsay, and I am pretty sure the people in the letter would testify to the truth of what they said. And Iโm sure anyone present at the event would be subpoenaed if this were in court to paint a broader probabilistic picture.
@RichardHanania But really all of this is irrelevant because you are still talking about what Derbyshire said (which I actually agree its unclear from the letter) when the relevant issue is what Wax said.
@RichardHanania Also, I have no idea what you mean by โheredityโ here but I am of course not offended by talk of the general scientific concept.
Could you be more specific and maybe fix my apparent ignorance?
Could you be more specific and maybe fix my apparent ignorance?
@RichardHanania Also, my point B) from above stands
Loading suggestions...