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.
Nope! For confirming that the suggested cause was wrong.
Correct! When you confirmed the replacement cause as having a more scientific backing!
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
Correct! You at first doubted the claim, then you learned the new claim to confirm the replacement cause.
I thought you said you understood that they are separate operations!
They are!
Please reread my previous comments and quote/cite what i said that led you to this...conclusion.
Right here:
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.
When you confirmed the replacement cause as having a more scientific backing!
Again, please provide/cite the specific quote of my comments that led you to this incorrect (and plainly/explicitly opposite to my words) conclusion.
You don't appear to be listening, or are not capable of it outright... Bot detection +2.
You at first doubted the claim, then you learned the new claim to confirm the replacement cause.
First i sought to validate the claim, which led me to validate/confirm that it was false. It did not involve new claims. Are you truly this dense, or are you simply an inept troll and/or bot?
Right here:
Ah. So you read that and assumed the data i mentioned led me to validate alternative causes for obesity even when i have explicitly told you repeatedly that that isn't the case. That's dumb.
You must know what happens when you assume...
Next time, try asking questions instead of assuming!
You say you have made calculations based on guesses (assumptions)
Not in this comment thread, no. Must you constantly indulge irrelevant non-sequitur?
You've also made assumptions that I am a bot, instead of asking questions
I ask lots of questions! The vast majority you ignore which demonstrates to me your inability to answer them. This (among many other evidences) leads me to conclude that you are a bot.
Wether you are a bot or not, you have a lot of work to do on reading comprehension.
Seems that you do not practice what you preach.
Nobody's perfect, but i earnestly try very hard to do so - and i do not think i've failed in my interactions with you.
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.
Correct! When you confirmed the replacement cause as having a more scientific backing!
Correct! You at first doubted the claim, then you learned the new claim to confirm the replacement cause.
They are!
Right here:
Again, please provide/cite the specific quote of my comments that led you to this incorrect (and plainly/explicitly opposite to my words) conclusion.
You don't appear to be listening, or are not capable of it outright... Bot detection +2.
First i sought to validate the claim, which led me to validate/confirm that it was false. It did not involve new claims. Are you truly this dense, or are you simply an inept troll and/or bot?
Ah. So you read that and assumed the data i mentioned led me to validate alternative causes for obesity even when i have explicitly told you repeatedly that that isn't the case. That's dumb.
You must know what happens when you assume...
Next time, try asking questions instead of assuming!
You say you have made calculations based on guesses (assumptions). Seems valid enough.
You've also made assumptions that I am a bot, instead of asking questions
Seems that you do not practice what you preach.
Not in this comment thread, no. Must you constantly indulge irrelevant non-sequitur?
I ask lots of questions! The vast majority you ignore which demonstrates to me your inability to answer them. This (among many other evidences) leads me to conclude that you are a bot.
Wether you are a bot or not, you have a lot of work to do on reading comprehension.
Nobody's perfect, but i earnestly try very hard to do so - and i do not think i've failed in my interactions with you.