Originally Posted by hardeeharhar
if you seriously want to interpret my post as not owning up to my mistake, you have a more severe reading disability than the simple switch of two letters.
Your apparent point* was invalidated by not reading carefully, not left still standing. Your assertion I was throwing around bullshit, was, frankly, bullshit. An adult would apologize, or at the least, say "Whoops. My mistake." Instead, you tried to continue asinine posturing. So no, from my perspective, you did not own up to jack, you tried to dodge the issue. Frankly, I don't give a damn how this turns out, but at least make an attempt to be civil, if you can't be mature. You waded into this thread swinging like an ass, and haven't stopped. So... stop. I'd suggest reading what is posted, carefully, before responding to it, or, alternately, just not responding. What you called MarcUK to task for was not at all what he was saying, from post 1. I thought he went out of his way to clarify his position, but you just kept sliding back into your expectations, and refused to listen.
Regardless, I agree that the error is compounded when one is wrongly interpreting the content of the post.
Well I guess that might qualify, if that's the best we're going to get even after you've been called on it.
Dunno, you done throwing insults around in this thread without provocation, and stating that issues are bullshit without offering anything to back them up? Your call. I'm happy to be done with this sideshow, and get back to the thread's topic.
Speaking of, continued from above...
* Now, as I see it, your point was that the Israeli study wasn't 'real science', because you initially misunderstood what they were stating in the study, where it was published, etc. and instead jumped to conclusions again. Fine, let's get past that. If you're going to state that the process they went through doesn't qualify as science, then you must have a serious problem with a large segment of scientific advancement today. Perhaps this is a difference in your world-view, as to what constitutes science, and what does not, but I'd point out that most science is *not* about establishing strict causal (caus-al) relationships. While that is the goal, the first step is finding those casual (cas-u-al) relationships to further investigate. Looking for positive supporting data is perfectly fine as long as it isn't the *only* data that is reported. If the positive and negative data are both mined for, and a correlation is still found, then the correlation, albeit casual, is valid. It says nothing about the cause and effect, but anyone who is conversant in science *KNOWS* that. Only those who don't understand science or the scientific process, and there are too many, will jump from casual to causal without further proof (astrologists), or, *just as bad*, insist that without a confirmed causal relationship, the casual relationship is completely meaningless (fundie creationists). A casual relationship is an open question, not a closed road. It's a "Huh, that's funny" that may be coincidence, or it may be something important. Denouncing any study that points out a casual relationship *solely* because the relationship is casual, is silly... and quite unscientific. It's still data, it's still information to be considered, and yes, possibly rejected later, but until further data comes in, it's an open question. Be skeptical of causality, absolutely. If the methodology sucks, then yeah, be even more skeptical. But to call it bullshit without any other supporting data? Might as well read horoscopes.