Another of your misunderstandings - what I'm saying, and all those educated in the scientific method know, is that if there are multiple hypotheses that explain a given observation (such as a "strong relationship") then that observation doesn't prove any one of those hypotheses. This is what the researchers in the first link YOU posted said, as I quoted twice.
As my last post said reasoanble assumptions DO constitute scientific proof- Cases established beyond a reasonable doubt DO hold up in court, DO stand for scientific discoveries ALL THE TIME
Are you mis-equating "reasoanble assumption" and "established beyond a reasonable doubt"? Or are you claiming that "reasoanble assumptions [...] DO stand for scientific discoveries ALL THE TIME"? If the latter, I challenge you to provide a single example of a scientific discovery announced on the basis of nothing more than a "reasoanble assumption."
[[Another of your misunderstandings - what I’m saying, and all those educated in the scientific method know, is that if there are multiple hypotheses that explain a given observation (such as a “strong relationship”) then that observation doesn’t prove any one of those hypotheses.]]
There were no mutiple hypothesis stated- and since you seem incapable of posting without insulting I’ll stoop to a level your post at- In your ingorance of hte issue- You post a link to a site on the WEB that has irrelevent exampels of anecdotal experiences OUTSIDE of any sorts of scientific studies and apaprently feel that it’s an adequate argument against drawing reasonable conclusions Simply because variable can be HYPOTHESISED in regards to a study does NOT negate the fact that the study shows a strogn relationship- You are insinuating that a site that essentailly claism that because there are no absolutes, reasonable conclusiosn can not be made- and that’s simpyl horsecrap=- reasonable conlcusiosn ARE made ALL THE TIME in science and law- when enough reasoanble evidence is shown, then a connection CAN be made UNTIL another study coems along and shows that hte previous study was wrong- thats’ the way it work both in science and law- Detectives gather evidence, present it to a lawyer who makes the case that the evidnece is enough to show guolt or innocence beyond a reasonable doubt- Jurors work on the basis that more evidence showing guiklt or innocence is enough to make a judgement on a case of guilt or innocence ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ Your wiki site however apaprwently thinks it knows more about science aqnd law than the actual sicence and law practicioners-
[[Are you mis-equating “reasoanble assumption” and “established beyond a reasonable doubt”?]]
I’ll answerr this in a similar fashion to the way you have answered previously
NO! You’re ignorance of the meanings of terms is apparent, and it’s not my job to spell out the meanings to you- I’m sticking my figners in my ears and saying ‘na na na na boo boo from here on out-
[[If the latter, I challenge you to provide a single example of a scientific discovery announced on the basis of nothing more than a “reasoanble assumption.”]]
Again, I’ll answer in the fashion you do
It’s not my job to educate you and until you educate yourself on the subject, I’ll never post again because your obvious ignorance isn’t worth answering (but of course I’ll keep posting- I just like hearing myswelf say that) (I could also give just one word to show that reaqsonable assumptions [Even though they are anythign BUT reasonable, conciderign that they violate natural law- but that doesn’t stop scientists from claiming they’ve establiushed hteir case beyond a reasoanble doubt-] Are used all the time in science - however, revertign back to your fashion of argument “I’ts not my job to educate soemoen who is ignorant cocnernign the issues beign discussed and I’m takign my ball and goign home!