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.
But in this particular case, what you have described yourself doing is gaining knowledge of the actual causes of obesity
Wrong again!
To begin with i didn't know wether it was true or not.
Correct. To begin with i did not know wether the "fact" that consuming fat was significantly responsible for the obesity epidemic was true or not. Then i confirmed that it wasn't. The end.
Invalidating a claim is NOT the same as validating a separate one, and does not require a "replacement claim" to help you sleep at night.
Invalidating a claim is NOT the same as validating a separate one
Correct, they are not the same! They are two separate steps of the process. You invalidated the previous claim in part through the method of validating a separate one.
And yet you don't (or can't :() listen! Even when i plainly, explicitly, and repeatedly correct your misunderstanding... Bot detection +1
Through learning the proper causes!
Nope! For confirming that the suggested cause was wrong. There is a big (and important) difference between that and validating a replacement cause (what you are calling "proper causes") which you seem to be struggling to grasp.
Correct, they are not the same!
Exactly.
They are two separate steps of the process
Wrong! When you validate (or invalidate, as it is in this case) a single claim you don't (and shouldn't!) validate other claims at the same time. You merely validate/invalidate the singular claim you are evaluating.
I thought you said you understood that they are separate operations!
You invalidated the previous claim in part through the method of validating a separate one.
Completely wrong. Please reread my previous comments and quote/cite what i said that led you to this incorrect (and plainly opposite to the text) conclusion.
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:
Wrong again!
Correct. To begin with i did not know wether the "fact" that consuming fat was significantly responsible for the obesity epidemic was true or not. Then i confirmed that it wasn't. The end.
Invalidating a claim is NOT the same as validating a separate one, and does not require a "replacement claim" to help you sleep at night.
It's what you said.
Exactly! Through learning the proper causes!
Correct, they are not the same! They are two separate steps of the process. You invalidated the previous claim in part through the method of validating a separate one.
And yet you don't (or can't :() listen! Even when i plainly, explicitly, and repeatedly correct your misunderstanding... Bot detection +1
Nope! For confirming that the suggested cause was wrong. There is a big (and important) difference between that and validating a replacement cause (what you are calling "proper causes") which you seem to be struggling to grasp.
Exactly.
Wrong! When you validate (or invalidate, as it is in this case) a single claim you don't (and shouldn't!) validate other claims at the same time. You merely validate/invalidate the singular claim you are evaluating.
I thought you said you understood that they are separate operations!
Completely wrong. Please reread my previous comments and quote/cite what i said that led you to this incorrect (and plainly opposite to the text) conclusion.