>>Good point about the ad-hominem attack being gratuitous and not useful, but then you make your own about Forbes and the author, and not just one but a series of them.<<
I read back through it and didn't see these ad hominem attacks. Rather, I read where I addressed his sophistry and called him out for engaging in such. When he made a valid point, I agreed with him. Then I pointed out he isn't actually calling for better research, just criticizing this research for not being better. BTW, that doesn't mean it is invalid. He made no substantive claims it was invalid or that explained the results of the study.
You claim I personally attacked the author in an effort to avoid his arguments - so list them.
>>Unless its outright fraud, you don't so much get hard evidence that its bad, you get points about the weakness of its setup and methodology (most obviously and most important the small control size)<<
Every set up and every methodology of every diet study can be criticized for "weakness."
That isn't relevant. What is relevant is whether the statistics used, based upon the set up, yielded statistically significant results.
That wasn't addressed. Yet, that is the crux of the matter... and left untouched. Either this author doesn't understand science or else this author is deceptive with arm waiving over irrelevant issues that apply to all studies in order to hide the fact he actually had no relevant criticism of the results produced by this study. |
