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.
I didn't initially find the premise that eating a diet high in (especially animal) fat was bad for you impossible
Right, exactly.
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.
So you learned the actual reason for the causes of obesity, leading you to fully discount the previous assertion.
Objective study is not possible if you begin from a biased conclusion and then go out to (selectively) confirm that bias.
I agree! We cannot form our conclusion first without doing our due diligence, and sometimes that includes reckoning with the difficult questions that might skew our biased worldview
To begin with i didn't know wether it was true or not.
Exactly! You've come a long way. It's okay to admit if you're not sure of something, instead of blindly affirming to your first guess.
Now apply this to the discussion on the shape of the earth :)
So you learned the actual reason for the causes of obesity, leading you to fully discount the previous assertion.
Wrong! Invalidating a possibility is not the same as confirming another one. They are two separate and distinct operations. All i did was confirm that fat consumption was not the major cause of weight gain / obesity as was claimed. That is an invalidation of the claim, not a validation of a wholly different claim!
You've come a long way.
And you have so much farther to go :( But i'm happy to help if i can. In this conversation i have not come any distance whatsoever. My position now is exactly the same as it was at the outset. No "distance" has been travelled for me. The "distance" you are mistaking for mine is (hopefully) just your corrected understanding of what i initially stated.
Now apply this to the discussion on the shape of the earth :)
Wrong! Invalidating a possibility is not the same as confirming another one.
I understand that. But in this particular case, what you have described yourself doing is gaining knowledge of the actual causes of obesity to fully discount the previous assertion. You said yourself:
To begin with i didn't know wether it was true or not.
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.
Right, exactly.
So you learned the actual reason for the causes of obesity, leading you to fully discount the previous assertion.
I agree! We cannot form our conclusion first without doing our due diligence, and sometimes that includes reckoning with the difficult questions that might skew our biased worldview
Exactly! You've come a long way. It's okay to admit if you're not sure of something, instead of blindly affirming to your first guess.
Now apply this to the discussion on the shape of the earth :)
Wrong! Invalidating a possibility is not the same as confirming another one. They are two separate and distinct operations. All i did was confirm that fat consumption was not the major cause of weight gain / obesity as was claimed. That is an invalidation of the claim, not a validation of a wholly different claim!
And you have so much farther to go :( But i'm happy to help if i can. In this conversation i have not come any distance whatsoever. My position now is exactly the same as it was at the outset. No "distance" has been travelled for me. The "distance" you are mistaking for mine is (hopefully) just your corrected understanding of what i initially stated.
Exactly! Practice what you preach!
I understand that. But in this particular case, what you have described yourself doing is gaining knowledge of the actual causes of obesity to fully discount the previous assertion. You said yourself: