It's what you said.

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.

It's what you said.

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 claim.

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.

It's what you said.

And yet you don't (or can't :() listen! Even when i plainly 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 claim.

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.