5 ms·
I'm saying that if you, a person who is probably not privy to the medical details of another random internet poster, cannot factually assert that dietary change
by bmelton 9y ago
I'm saying that if you, a person who is probably not privy to the medical details of another random internet poster, cannot factually assert that dietary changes had nothing to do with his hay fever, then it is inappropriate to assert that it had nothing to do with his hay fever as fact.
We know that there are foods that have medical benefit. There are foods that contain anti-histamine capabilities, for example, or decongestant capabilities that could have been positively impactful on hay fever. These may have been a part of OP's dietary supplements.
Without knowing what the supplements were, we cannot dismiss that they might possibly have been of aid.
- Retric 9y agoI never said it was the correct answer, but if you say the car was captured by aliens and I say it may have just been towed. The rational thing is to consider things in order of probability vs. risk not necessarily go with aliens every time. I mean sure it could have been stolen, or towed, or aliens, etc. But, the point is when what happens can have reasonable explanations it's not evidence for ET.
- bmelton 9y agoThe OP I'm responding to said, specifically "The snake-oil has done nothing," which they cannot know for certain, especially given that the dietary supplements were not even listed.
- Chris2048 9y agoWhich OP said that? Can you link/quote them?
- Retric 9y agoWould you take 1:1,000 odds that it did something? If not saying it did nothing is perfectly reasonable. I mean sure the sun might go out tomorrow, but reasonable assumptions are reasonable. Further logically he said it may have been this, but clearly the magic beans where worthless. Which is different than saying it defiantly was this and therefore the magic beans are worthless. PS: And no I would not take those odds even though it may have helped, there are odds vastly below 1%.
- Chris2048 9y agoFair enough - though this was what your analogy was about? Not the rational explanation provided?