Your writing is clear, at least to this reader, and your point is completely valid. I think the issue is that the general structure of what you're saying is tr

Your writing is clear, at least to this reader, and your point is completely valid. I think the issue is that the general structure of what you're saying is triggering false alarms in people's bullshit detectors, and so they fail to read for comprehension. Given that dishonest participants will specifically pretend to take positions counter to their agenda for the purpose of implying validity, authenticity, or just creating doubt, it really makes it hard to make the kind of valid point you tried to without getting misread. The fundamental problem is that there is just no direct way to win in the face of dishonesty: "Cellphones cannot cause cancer" -> "What about mechanism X! You can't prove it doesn't! OMG scientists are all liars! (Therefore homeopathy!)" "Cellphones almost certainly do not cause cancer, as there is no known mechanism, and no epidemiology suggesting that they do" -> "Scientists admit that it's not impossible for cellphones to cause cancer! They admit they don't know if there is a mechanism! They can't prove anything! (Therefore homeopathy!)" Anyhow thanks for kicking off an interesting discussion, and being a direct example of how dishonest participants have poisoned the discourse even when they aren't directly participating in it.