(July 13, 2016 at 2:40 pm)paulpablo Wrote:(July 13, 2016 at 2:33 pm)Irrational Wrote: Uh, no, if you noticed, they (infowars.com) provided their own interpretations which aren't logically deduced from the sources they referenced.
For example, this:
Where in the stats provided is this causal claim shown to be true?
True that part can't be proven.
But it can potentially be demonstrated to be true with studies showing this to be the case. It's not proof that's desired here anyway, but rather adequate empirical evidence.
Problem is that infowars.com provided some hypotheses without giving them a test.
