FoodBanter.com - View Single Post - The collusion of federal regulators and Monsanto

Landon

On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 01:38:42 +0000 (UTC),
(Steve Pope) wrote:

>Well, in the absence of supporting data, what do you believe?
>That excessive U.S. consumption is only killing 500 people annually
>instead of the 500,000 you have stated?

What I'm saying is that using the method of responsibility assignment
you've used isn't science, it's guessing. You GUESS the percentages
would be the same. You've offered no proof of it.
>
>>It seems that you're saying "Unless something is proven to make my
>>assumption inaccurate, then I'll believe what I have assumed to be
>>true."
>
>>That isn't how science works. Assumptions are not allowed in science.
>
>That's not at ALL what I'm saying. I'm saying that if a sample is
>behaving in a certain way, then unless there's a reason to believe
>otherwise, that behavior also best any describes any sub-sample. You
>would need positive evidence to assert that the U.S. is different
>from the rest of the world. You're claiming the U.S. is different;
>so you're the one who's on the hook for presenting said evidence.

No, that isn't the way it works. You've submitted that you THINK,
based on a logical assumption, that the percentage numbers match all
aspects of the argument.

Thinking something is true and assuming it so based on logical
assumption is not science.

Evidence supporting your assumptions is proof. You've offered none.
>
>>Proof by Peer reviewed analysis and review is what is accepted.
>>
>>You've not supplied any proof. Just assumptions.
>
>Your argument is very very weak. If you want to attack the original
>source (the 40% figure) then fine, but given that result and the
>absence of contrary evidence, I have stated the logical conclusions.
>You're just resisting those conclusions because you don't want to
>believe them.
>
>Steve

No, my argument is as solid as concrete. It's yours that is weak.

Sorry.

You've presented nothing but your own assumptions. No data, no science
to back them.

Actually, you have no argument worth consideration. Show me the data
that supports your claims. Then I'll consider your assumptions after
viewing the support data.

Logical conclusions are not facts or support data.

It's a fancy way of saying; "I have no proof, but here is my guess
based on what I *think* is happening".

It's you that needs to either put this to bed or show your evidence
that supports your guesses.