It’s one thing to say that it’s sensitive, but it’s another to base your mainline argument on a really unusual view without flagging that?
Does it really seem plausible to you that we should be indifferent between six months of a happy healthy pet chicken and a year of a happy healthy human?
To highlight better my view, I have moved the interpretation of the results regarding the moral weight and quality of the living condition of poultry from the Methodology to the Discussion.
Regarding your 2nd question, assuming that by “plausible” you mean likely, my answer is yes:
The mean and 82th percentile of the moral weight distribution are equal, which translates into a chance of 80% (20%) of the actual moral weight being smaller (larger) than the expected one.
That being said, I tend to think the focus should be on the expected moral weight, not on the quantile of the expected moral weight (although this is also relevant).
It’s one thing to say that it’s sensitive, but it’s another to base your mainline argument on a really unusual view without flagging that?
Does it really seem plausible to you that we should be indifferent between six months of a happy healthy pet chicken and a year of a happy healthy human?
I have now contextualised in this section how unusual my results are, and proposed a speculative explanation.
Thanks for the feedback!
To highlight better my view, I have moved the interpretation of the results regarding the moral weight and quality of the living condition of poultry from the Methodology to the Discussion.
Regarding your 2nd question, assuming that by “plausible” you mean likely, my answer is yes:
The mean and 82th percentile of the moral weight distribution are equal, which translates into a chance of 80% (20%) of the actual moral weight being smaller (larger) than the expected one.
That being said, I tend to think the focus should be on the expected moral weight, not on the quantile of the expected moral weight (although this is also relevant).