> For some reason, those 'coincidences' seem to always […] You are doing it again. Only if you actually find hard statistical evidence, or direct (not pre-sup

> For some reason, those 'coincidences' seem to always […] You are doing it again. Only if you actually find hard statistical evidence, or direct (not pre-supposed) causational evidence, can you can talk about coincidences and non-coincidences with any rationale for being able to tell the difference. Otherwise, you are passing off self-bullshitting as reasoning. The fact that you can, and are willing and motivated to, fool yourself with subjective “logic” isn’t something advantageous to share with other people. And that is the only actual information you are sharing. Don’t accept or publish imaginary results as results. If you want to reason effectively or be credible to others.