> Your turn to demonstrate your science It's not "my science". It's just "science". The fact that you keep trying to personalize this only underscores the poi

> Your turn to demonstrate your science It's not "my science". It's just "science". The fact that you keep trying to personalize this only underscores the point that you're not coming at this rationally. You're engaged in advocacy, not science. > Please, procure a paper that supports your point of view and simultaneously satisfies your requirements. I gave you the one I knew about that comes closest. The fact that there are no papers meeting the criteria for a good study in this area is not an indication that my standards are too high, but that yours are too low. > But what you're doing isn't science at all. You're just shitting on other people's work without showing what you actually like. Science is about applying skepticism to questions and demanding evidence. Again, we're not talking about emotional spreads in People Magazine here. > I'm convinced that the "studies" you want simply don't exist, either on my side of the argument nor on yours. The studies don't exist. That's exactly the point. And it's not "my side" or "your side" -- I have no attachment to the outcome here. Show me a study that meets the standards I set out and provides evidence for your claim, and I'll believe you. You can't. If the best you've got is anecdote and low-quality data, then you get my prior belief in your claim, which is that you're probably mistaken.