You’re quoting from the page which says right on top:
Important disclaimer: In light of new information, this post needs to be taken with a really whoppin’ huge grain of salt. It turns out Tuoli was “feasting” on the day the survey crew came for China Study I, so they were likely eating more calories, more wheat, more dairy, and so forth than they typically do the rest of the year. We can’t be completely sure what their normal diet did look at the time, but the questionnaire data (which is supposedly more reliable than the diet survey data) still suggests they were eating a lot of animal products and very little in the way of fruits or vegetables.
At any rate, I recommend not quoting this post or citing it as “evidence” for anything simply because of the uncertainty surrounding the Tuoli data in the China Study.
You seem to be more interested in creating gotchas than in finding out what’s actually happening in reality.
You’re quoting from the page which says right on top:
I was kind of waiting for you to point that out. Notice it’s a non-disclaimer anyway:
but the questionnaire data (which is supposedly more reliable than the diet survey data) still suggests they were eating a lot of animal products and very little in the way of fruits or vegetables.
In any case, I’m not using it as evidence for or against a particular diet. I’m using it as evidence of her research process. About a quarter of her criticism of TCS is based around Tuoli being an outlier, so it’s interesting that she also thought that their diet didn’t increase their rate of disease significantly, even before she found out the data was bad. It’s a clear sign of motivated cognition.
You seem to be more interested in creating gotchas than in finding out what’s actually happening in reality.
In general, you don’t seem very good at ascribing motives to me. Recall you were the one that asked for an example of what I found confusing.
I am sorry, did you miss that comment?
No, I didn’t.
But if you want to pretend Tuoli doesn’t exist, sure, you can pretend Tuoli doesn’t exist. What next?
That’s not even remotely close to what I said, and doesn’t really have anything to do with the point at hand.
I am going to call bullshit on that. You did a word search for “Tuoli” in a web page and that turned up 27 hits. That does not mean that there are 27 instances of using the Tuoli data to argue against TCS.
Section 1.2, for example, explicitly points out that taking Tuoli data out makes some Campbell claims to have much less support in the correlation numbers.
I think you’re being dishonest. This conversation is over.
You said that Minger’s criticism of TCS “doesn’t make sense”. Did you actually have anything specific in mind?
I also don’t see much problems with the passages you quoted.
They contradict each other. Why isn’t Tuoli an outlier?
You’re quoting from the page which says right on top:
You seem to be more interested in creating gotchas than in finding out what’s actually happening in reality.
I am sorry, did you miss that comment?
But if you want to pretend Tuoli doesn’t exist, sure, you can pretend Tuoli doesn’t exist. What next?
I was kind of waiting for you to point that out. Notice it’s a non-disclaimer anyway:
In any case, I’m not using it as evidence for or against a particular diet. I’m using it as evidence of her research process. About a quarter of her criticism of TCS is based around Tuoli being an outlier, so it’s interesting that she also thought that their diet didn’t increase their rate of disease significantly, even before she found out the data was bad. It’s a clear sign of motivated cognition.
In general, you don’t seem very good at ascribing motives to me. Recall you were the one that asked for an example of what I found confusing.
No, I didn’t.
That’s not even remotely close to what I said, and doesn’t really have anything to do with the point at hand.
I don’t believe this is true—see this.
You still haven’t made any specific objections against Minger’s criticism of TCS.
You did mention motivated cognition, did you not?
27 instances. Section 1.2, 1.4, 1.8, 2.2, 3.1, and of course 3.3. “A quarter” is about correct, but let’s say “a fifth” if you’d like.
She depends too much on the Tuoli data—which she supposedly doesn’t trust anyway—to make her arguments.
I am going to call bullshit on that. You did a word search for “Tuoli” in a web page and that turned up 27 hits. That does not mean that there are 27 instances of using the Tuoli data to argue against TCS.
Section 1.2, for example, explicitly points out that taking Tuoli data out makes some Campbell claims to have much less support in the correlation numbers.
I think you’re being dishonest. This conversation is over.
Then I’d advise in the future you not offer to provide clarification when you’d prefer to quibble and assume bad faith where none exists.