Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I feel like I was too harsh on Bcbrown. I sincerely apologize for that.
I am wary of his behavior due to past interactions, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt. Everyone deserves second chances.
His advise on the scientific method is sound. I appreciate the suggestion.
I was just genuinely confused as to why he gave the advise.
I think I got hung up on the "urge you to start" part of his comment:
This implies I didn't explain my predictions at all in this thread, and I should start doing it moving forward.
I am not sure how he can think that I haven't been explaining my predictions. I feel like the post below is a detailed explaination for how I am interpreting Haynar's post, and what I am expecting to see:
https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...2&postcount=61
I also told him I would do a larger test after he said my samples were too small. I thought the context was clear that I would repeat the same experiment with a larger sample size:
https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...4&postcount=65 |
You haven’t done anything wrong. From the start of this thread, your intentions and what you were testing have been clear. This isn’t an academic paper, and while this is kind of a peer review process, the context here is much more informal. Bcbrown’s point about you needing to state an a priori hypothesis, while technically correct, comes off as the kind of pedantic argument an undergraduate might make to win a petty debate. In this context, it’s completely irrelevant.
Frankly, the toxicity directed at you in these threads is bizarre. You haven’t done anything to warrant such attacks, and honestly, it’s just a bit odd. You come across as someone genuinely interested in the game and trying to approach things properly and with good intentions.
My advice is to just ignore the bullies and keep doing what you’re doing.