Suppose there is one school-age child, somewhere in the world, whose behavior is affected by artificial food colorings, and who is claimed to be sensitive to food coloring. Then the statement, “artificial food colorings do not affect the behavior of school-age children who are claimed to be sensitive to these agents,” is false.
You shouldn’t think of this paper as being in English. You should think of it as being written in Science.
It isn’t uncharitable. Even if they had said, “Artificial food colorings do not affect the behavior of MOST school-age children who are claimed to be sensitive to these agents,” it would still be a false claim, unsupported by their data and math. They proved that THERE EXIST children who are not sensitive to these agents. 5% may be enough.
You shouldn’t think of this paper as being in English. You should think of it as being written in Science.
Science != Pure Mathematics.
They proved that THERE EXIST children who are not sensitive to these agents. 5% may be enough.
Yes, you can “prove” very little outside pure mathematics. But “doesn’t prove” doesn’t imply “doesn’t support”. Chapter 1 of Probability Theory by E. T. Jaynes makes that clear.
(And BTW, how comes you’re taking “school-age children” to mean “all school-age children” but you’re not taking “artificial food colorings” to mean ‘all artificial food colorings’?)
Then the statement, “artificial food colorings do not affect the behavior of school-age children who are claimed to be sensitive to these agents,” is false.
No it fucking isn’t. Read the article I’ve linked to again. “Humans have opposable thumbs” doesn’t stop being true as soon as someone somewhere gets both thumbs amputated.
Re-read: Suppose there is one school-age child, somewhere in the world, whose behavior is affected by artificial food colorings, and who is claimed to be sensitive to food coloring. Then the statement, “artificial food colorings do not affect the behavior of school-age children who are claimed to be sensitive to these agents,” is false.
Claim A: Artificial food colorings do not affect the behavior of school-age children who are claimed to be sensitive to these agents.
Hypothesized fact B: There is one school-age child, somewhere in the world, whose behavior is affected by artificial food colorings, and who is claimed to be sensitive to food coloring.
You just said that claim A is true given fact B. I don’t need to read the article you linked to to know that’s wrong. We aren’t talking about how people use English colloquially. We are talking about how they use it making logical claims. And I know, from many years of experience, that when a doctor reads a study that concludes “X does not cause Y”, they interpret it as meaning “X never ever ever causes Y”.
Doesn’t matter anyway, since all they proved was “There exists AT LEAST ONE child not affected by food coloring.” That’s not even close to what they claimed.
Suppose there is one school-age child, somewhere in the world, whose behavior is affected by artificial food colorings, and who is claimed to be sensitive to food coloring. Then the statement, “artificial food colorings do not affect the behavior of school-age children who are claimed to be sensitive to these agents,” is false.
You shouldn’t think of this paper as being in English. You should think of it as being written in Science.
It isn’t uncharitable. Even if they had said, “Artificial food colorings do not affect the behavior of MOST school-age children who are claimed to be sensitive to these agents,” it would still be a false claim, unsupported by their data and math. They proved that THERE EXIST children who are not sensitive to these agents. 5% may be enough.
Science != Pure Mathematics.
Yes, you can “prove” very little outside pure mathematics. But “doesn’t prove” doesn’t imply “doesn’t support”. Chapter 1 of Probability Theory by E. T. Jaynes makes that clear.
(And BTW, how comes you’re taking “school-age children” to mean “all school-age children” but you’re not taking “artificial food colorings” to mean ‘all artificial food colorings’?)
No it fucking isn’t. Read the article I’ve linked to again. “Humans have opposable thumbs” doesn’t stop being true as soon as someone somewhere gets both thumbs amputated.
Dude. Let me break it down for you.
Re-read: Suppose there is one school-age child, somewhere in the world, whose behavior is affected by artificial food colorings, and who is claimed to be sensitive to food coloring. Then the statement, “artificial food colorings do not affect the behavior of school-age children who are claimed to be sensitive to these agents,” is false.
Claim A: Artificial food colorings do not affect the behavior of school-age children who are claimed to be sensitive to these agents.
Hypothesized fact B: There is one school-age child, somewhere in the world, whose behavior is affected by artificial food colorings, and who is claimed to be sensitive to food coloring.
You just said that claim A is true given fact B. I don’t need to read the article you linked to to know that’s wrong. We aren’t talking about how people use English colloquially. We are talking about how they use it making logical claims. And I know, from many years of experience, that when a doctor reads a study that concludes “X does not cause Y”, they interpret it as meaning “X never ever ever causes Y”.
Doesn’t matter anyway, since all they proved was “There exists AT LEAST ONE child not affected by food coloring.” That’s not even close to what they claimed.