Look, your position isn't convincingly supported by the evidence at hand. I'm not arguing the veracity of your position, or how many other factors weigh in to how you formed it. You made a statement specifically about a conclusion that can be reached from these maps, but it can't be reached from these maps. You were reaching, and you over-reached. I tried to inquire politely, but your answers became progressivley more vague. I'm not 'out to get you' on this, I'm just interested in a solid, well-founded defense of a claim which I wasn't personally able to confirm based on the evidence you presented. Now, you're saying it is supported by all this other stuff. That's fine, just don't say it's based on these maps unless you intend to back that claim. Either back it or retract it--these would be the two intellectually honest options you have.
The 'force' of an opinion, alone, is not a good indicator of accuracy. If it was indicated by the evidence, it wouldn't require you to force it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibby
the maps alone, no. The overwhelming data from multiple fields and sources ...
|
This is the definition of confirmation bias. You'e projected a conclusion upon the evidence. This is backwards to how science works.