@michaelshermer@billprady 4) So, in the absence of compelling evidence sufficient to reject the null, perhaps all we can say is “further study is needed” /
@michaelshermer@billprady 1) Seems like we have an empirical question on the table: “do trans women have a distinct across-the-board competitive advantage Vs. cis women in sports?”
@michaelshermer@billprady 3) and at current, we just don’t have enough evidence to reject the Null. Sure there are anecdotes of some trans women outcompeting some cis women, but then the plural of anecdote is not “data.”
@michaelshermer@billprady 2) like the good skeptics that we are, let’s start with the null hypothesis, that there is not an empirically measurable advantage. We retain the null until we gather sufficient evidence to reject it in favor of the Alternative Hypothesis.
@coles_nicholas_ This is all great advice! I feel like #5 can get dicey when there are multiple sessions going on, and people are trying to time when to leave one session and make another. Ending early is nice but ending too early can result in people arriving “late” for the next talk.
“By the time Number One comes around, you realize there’s only one thing it could be.” @ScottAukerman and @PFTompkins just helped me realize how to explain Degrees of Freedom to my statistics students. @ComedyBangBang