"Aye, and if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon"
Meaning your comment is (once again) an irrelevant aside/non-sequitur. And now you are doubling down because ... ?
The "fact" that most everyone learned or was exposed to was that eating fat was largely responsible for being/becoming fat. This is what i was saying was (and is) incorrect, and recognized that fact through research on the subject without replacing it with something new.
This is the nature of critical evaluation. The vast majority of the times you critically evaluate something to be incorrect, it does not lead to (and never provides, in and of the critical evaluation itself) the correct answer to replace it (that would sure be nice though!)
"But it can contribute to obesity." ... IF you eat huge volumes of it.
Because eating huge volumes of ANYTHING digestible can contribute to obesity (obviously) AND we weren't talking about extreme volumes of consumption... It is all irrelevant nonsequitur.
You didn't "magically" get the correct answer by not believing in what ended up being incorrect. You learned the correct answer.
No, i didn't. I merely removed/discounted/discarded/refuted/invalidated a wrong answer by determining it incorrect through study/research.
I unlearned the incorrect answer! There's a big difference!
When you identify something is not correct, that - obviously - doesn't automatically give you the correct answer to replace it with.
Which gave you the understanding of why what you originally thought was impossible, by finding hard data?
I, like most people, didn't initially find the premise that eating a diet high in (especially animal) fat was bad for you impossible - this was the reason for the "low fat craze". The public (including many physicians and dietitians) bought the marketing, hook line and sinker. It was through further study, of which data (generally compiled by others, though consistent with my own anecdotal observations) is one part, that i came to determine that this "fact" was false.
Objective study is not possible if you begin from a biased conclusion and then go out to (selectively) confirm that bias. To begin with i didn't know wether it was true or not.
"Aye, and if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon"
Meaning your comment is (once again) an irrelevant aside/non-sequitur. And now you are doubling down because ... ?
The "fact" that most everyone learned or was exposed to was that eating fat was largely responsible for being/becoming fat. This is what i was saying was (and is) incorrect, and recognized that fact through research on the subject without replacing it with something new.
This is the nature of critical evaluation. The vast majority of the times you critically evaluate something to be incorrect, it does not lead to (and never provides, in and of the critical evaluation itself) the correct answer to replace it (that would sure be nice though!)
Not the same. This isn't an "if" statement.
You didn't "magically" get the correct answer by not believing in what ended up being incorrect. You learned the correct answer.
"But it can contribute to obesity." ... IF you eat huge volumes of it.
Because eating huge volumes of ANYTHING digestible can contribute to obesity (obviously) AND we weren't talking about extreme volumes of consumption... It is all irrelevant nonsequitur.
No, i didn't. I merely removed/discounted/discarded/refuted/invalidated a wrong answer by determining it incorrect through study/research.
I unlearned the incorrect answer! There's a big difference!
When you identify something is not correct, that - obviously - doesn't automatically give you the correct answer to replace it with.
Which gave you the understanding of why what you originally thought was impossible, by finding hard data?
I, like most people, didn't initially find the premise that eating a diet high in (especially animal) fat was bad for you impossible - this was the reason for the "low fat craze". The public (including many physicians and dietitians) bought the marketing, hook line and sinker. It was through further study, of which data (generally compiled by others, though consistent with my own anecdotal observations) is one part, that i came to determine that this "fact" was false.
Objective study is not possible if you begin from a biased conclusion and then go out to (selectively) confirm that bias. To begin with i didn't know wether it was true or not.