Can you duck and cover for a moment, please? I have something I have to get out of my system or I will have a stroke.
Jesus fucking Christ! I know it's a Reddit fad to throw around the ninth grade logic curriculum, and everyone wants to be one of the cool kids that say things like "straw man," "ad hominem," and "false dichotomy," but what I said was not a straw man. In order to be a straw man, an argument must meet two requirements. I have to attribute my argument to you, and the audience has to be unaware of your position. In this case I did not attribute my a argument to you. It's MY argument. I am telling you what I think, not telling you what you think. I used the word "I" twice in that paragraph. And the audience is you. You can't be unaware of your own position. It's not a strawman.
I feel better. Thanks.
The opposition is that a sample from one specific population is not representative of the wider population,
That could be a good argument if you could establish that there are material differences.
that's it's not a rigorous test, regardless of what your intuition tells you.
You have not said why it's not rigorous.
These studies are not "sufficient to establish the truth until feminists allow more;"
they don't establish anything if the studies are flawed;
You haven't made a case for any flaws. Except that you don't seem to like the results. I wonder if you will apply this same bias to studies of unreported rapes. I doubt it, but I hope so.
You haven't said what the questions are. Yes, all the subjects are military. And they're "not rigorous". And they're "flawed". What does that mean? When we test physical fitness, we can't extrapolate military populations because the PT every day. What about military women makes them more or less likely to lie about rape? What are the characteristics of a liar? You're shooting blanks.
a lot of those indicators are ridiculous.
They are not ridiculous if they appeared among women known to have lied. You sort of pointed to that. If I said having a scorpion tattoo is a ridiculous reason to arrest someone, I hope you would tell me that's ridiculous. Unless all LSD traffickers are known to have them. And that's what happened here. TV habits were known to be consistent. And so on.
confidence interval in extrapolating that to the entire airforce is gonna be broad af given the sample size of 556, the fact it's never been repeated and the total size of the airforce.
I don't want to hear about confidence intervals until you calculate them. It's absurd to say, "I don't know what it is, but "it's gonna be broad."
For fun, i would like to point out that you had ZERO...I repeat ZERO SKEPTICISM of the Cambridge and FBI papers. So that might indicate bias that would lead you to make an assumption about the p value that isn't based in reality.