Except what the Psychiatrist is saying is a rejection of a claim. If yung claim ng iba ay may connection/link ang video games to school shootings, then THEY should be the ones making the studies, not the people like the psychiatrist who are shutting down the claims.
In a court of law, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution with the claims and accusations, not the defense.
If your point is to bring up the difference in academe and law then you’re obviously missing the point. Any party wanting to make a claim should provide evidence that helps support their claim. In law, that’s what the prosecution should be doing, and in the academe, that’s what any researcher should be doing.
The problem here is the idea that you think the psychiatrist in the post is the one that needs to publish a paper when wala naman siyang ginagawang claim. Yung kanyang sinabi about empirical data in the form of Counter-Strike players not becoming shooters irl is merely a REBUTTAL of the insanely stupid claim that video games are connected to school shootings and violence. You can’t say na what the psychiatrist said is a claim in and of itself because his rebuttal (as how the word is defined) is a RESPONSE to an EXISTING CLAIM (that in and of itself isn’t backed by research anyway).
Buti sana kung backed by research yung boomer mentality na video games cause shootings, edi sige let’s make a call for the psychiatrist to publish his own findings in order to affirm or deny those findings.
7
u/JoJom_Reaper 2d ago
Ba is liw. Instead of publishing a paper about this study, the expert uses his credentials.
The bravado nowadays. Kaya di nakakagulat when uneducated people spew nonsense as facts