zlacker

>>delbar+(OP)
> When you see a reliable public betting challenge with real stakes, you can be very confident the claim is true at a probability that is significantly above 50% (assuming 1:1 odds are being offered).

This makes the assumption that the overall stakes are even. What if Alex Jones puts up 100K that boiled frog eyes cure COVID? He could be absurdly wrong, but the additional credibility offered by this may let him sell a million dollars more of boiled frog eyes.

The problem is, there is going to be virtually no research on whether boiled frog eyes are a cure for covid, so it is next to impossible to challenge the claim and made all the more difficult by the potential for human error and the risk involved noted in the challenge.

>>MattGa+D4
Is this a joke on his 'I don't like them putting chemicals in the water that turn the friggin' frogs gay!' famous sentence? Because it's true: https://www.pnas.org/content/107/10/4612

>>eznzt+3q
Atrazine causing feminization in frogs is an undisputed fact, but the statement as given ("they put chemicals in the water TO turn frogs gay") is absolutely not. Atrazine is used because it's a cheap and effective herbicide, frog feminization is a side effect which doesn't factor into decisions about its use.

>>katman+9r
Ah yes, technically the chemicals are being put in the water and are turning the frogs gay but you see, they only intended to put the chemicals in the water and didn't specifically intend to turn the frogs gay.

>>ikeboy+qr
The chemicals are not being intentionally put in the water at all. They are sprayed onto plants and then run off into the water. Atrazine is a herbicide.

>>MattGa+rs
Fair point, so the intentionality is one level back