[JustSayNoToNannies]

No, they’re using simple examples to make a point about what can and can’t be concluded from correlations.

No-

Yes.

I posted where you said and implied both those things-

Wrong.

If all you have left is repetitions of your ignorant misunderstandings, I'm done here.

[CottShop]

[[No, they’re using simple examples to make a point about what can and can’t be concluded from correlations.
No-

Yes.]]

Wow- AQgain- Personal ANECDOTAL claims and scientifically conducted studies have absoltuely NOTHING in common and the compaison of the one to the other in order to make some assinien claim is well, assinine- Controlled studies take into account variables, ANECTDOTAL experiences do NOT and peopel often draw wrong conclusions BECAUSE they do nNOT KNOW the variables that coudl effect the results they assume- Beyond reasonable doubt is a term used in courts of law- it establishes facts beyond a reasoanble doubt and so do scientific studies- ANECDOTAL experiences do NOT- Wiki invents ANECDOTAL scenarios and claims scientiif studies can not establish beyond reasoanble doubt cases because someoen has decided ANECDOTAL experiences are ‘Scientifically valid arguments agaisnt concluding beyond reasonable doubt cases’?

Just wow! (Now comes the ‘brilliant’ response ‘Wrong’ fro myou I suppose, without any explaaination why it’s ‘wrong’? Though I wouldn’t stand or fall on a wiki posting if I were you-)

[CottShop]

[[No, they’re using simple examples to make a point about what can and can’t be concluded from correlations.
No-

Yes.

Wrong.

If all you have left is repetitions of your ignorant misunderstandings, I’m done here.]]

Lol- pot calling hte kettle black