[decorator]

It seems counterfactuals can be known (according to the downvotes). It must be clear how truth-values can be obtained.

I must have missed the news about A/B testing reality. Silly me.

[yorwba]

Your comment may be factually correct, but doesn't make clear how it applies to its parent. In combination with the dismissive tone, it's not a good contribution to the discussion. Piling on by being presumptive about the reason for downvotes doesn't help.

[decorator]

> But that’s because of aggressive efforts to recruit women, as well as lawsuits, in the 1980s and 1990s, to counteract the long history of discrimination (the field as 95% men in the 1960s). If people back then hadn’t done that, we wouldn’t be getting the “best person” today.

Is that not a counterfactual?

> Your comment may be factually correct, but doesn't make clear how it applies to its parent.

I didn't realise it wasn't clear. Maybe I should have defined the term & pointed out exactly where it was:

Counterfactual: 'Relating to or expressing what has not happened or is not the case.'.

Then again I expected people to be able to connect the two things together.

I guess my tone was because I'd expect someone who works in corporate law to know better. Maybe I should have outlined that as well. I could have explained that I was shocked. That's what I thought the tone conveyed. Surprise: Really?

Does that not convey surprise?

I guess it could be dismissive, but dismissing what? I'm asking a question.

I'm sorry if I was dismissive to the corporate lawyer regarding his use of a counterfactual (with the presumption that I'm correct). I probably could have pointed out I thought they were wrong in a nicer way.

[decorator]

You can't reason with ideologues. That's what makes them dangerous.

With an inability to entertain an opposing view there can be no course correction.