Re: you are both "padding your paper"

You both engage in throwing labels around, a type of name calling, WITHOUT EVER defining those labels and then proving how those labels fit the situation you use them in to show you are using them in the correct way. Operationally defining your terms that you like to throw around like, "dissonance, fixation, unproven" is being scientifically literate. You are not scientifically literate but you use scientific terms loosely in front of others, hoping you can convince those who do not know the scientific meaning of these terms, that you are showing them something new when you are not.

For example, at present you are throwing around the label "dissonance" when actually you don't know what you are talking about and you can verify this by checking it out with professionals in the appropriate field. Since you are pretending to know oh so much about dissonance, then it follows you should know where to go to check it out.

Another example that you do not know what you are talking about is that you have not attempted to show your main point in any logical way. You have not explained with examples how you can infer from one person to a whole nation and still expect that conclusion to be valid, much less proved it scientifically. And you say you are scientifically literate? And you tell other people you have proven something scientifically? You're kidding, right? You have not even debated points for your logical fallacy which I pointed out in my post (above-get scientifically literate). Yet you still believe it. But instead, you chose to bring out your quackery that dissonance does not exist and tried to say I had said that. How do you explain the logical fallacy you are engaging in by saying you can generalize or infer from one woman's results in the Lancet article on Gallstones to millions of other people?? This fallacy is what you are trying to force down people's throats. You are the one with the statement that is unproven.

Why don't you get a book on Logic (you know, a division of Philosophy) and look up commom errors made in reasoning or logic. I'd be interested in knowing if a class in Logic was required before you took your course in Gray's Anatomy and committed to memory definitions of anatomy locations from your anatomy books. Did you have a class on Logic?

People who have never had 1 class in Logic or even heard of it, will get a beginners book on Logic and be 3 times as far ahead in showing their points rationally as you are.

What you will do, instead, is to drag out some side issue and attempt to make that the main issue that you allegedly prove by using the wrong reasoning or logic. That you want to infer from one example, the results of the woman's Liver Flush in the Lancet article, IS a major issue. That you want to show you have a mountain of evidence when you have one small speck, IS a major issue. Is it fair to generalize from one small piece of evidence and say you have a huge amount of evidence in order to give you a free hand to apply it to millions of other people? Is this fair to you? You are using bad reasoning and bad logic, if you think that even if you did prove the Liver Flush didn't have gallstones, you could generalize by inferring millions of other people would not get Gallstones either.


definitions for those who find them usefull:
good.......commendable
.............valid
logic......the Science of reasoning (synonym-facts)
test.......grounds for admission or exclusion
testimony..proof of some fact
quack......one who pretends to a skill in an art Tweet