@EMcCra2 @doritmi @aspiritcan @alafiadelight We can prove to an extremely high level of certainty. Again, you are arguing semantics here.
-
-
Replying to @GidMK
@EMcCra2
@doritmi@aspiritcan @alafiadelight You are simply misunderstanding the word 'prove' in this context.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @Vbalance03
@EMcCra2
@doritmi@aspiritcan @alafiadelight We can demonstrate to an extremely high level of significance that vax=/= autism.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
@EMcCra2
@doritmi@aspiritcan @alafiadelight Which most people would call 'proof'. Mathematicians use a different definition of the word.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @Vbalance03
@EMcCra2
@doritmi@aspiritcan @alafiadelight It's proof for pop health experts. Again, you are misdefining proof.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @Vbalance03
@EMcCra2
@doritmi@aspiritcan @alafiadelight Ah contradiction. The last refuge of the woefully inconsistent argument.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
@EMcCra2
@doritmi@aspiritcan @alafiadelight Have a read of this and come back to me about your semantic nonsense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_proof …4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@EMcCra2 @doritmi @aspiritcan @alafiadelight We have statistical proof. Not 100% but that is literally how statistics works.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @Vbalance03
@EMcCra2
@doritmi@aspiritcan @alafiadelight Seriously, what don't you understand about statistical proof? It CAN'T be 100% ever.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.