mathematics wrote:
I'll stick up for the phrasing there. Everytime they do a study on self reporting of food intake it shows a substantial amount of people under report. Anywhere from 18%-70% of people in studies underreport. And that's people in studies asked specifically to track for the study. Not someone remembering back to how they ate 6 months ago. One counter example doesn't disprove that it should be taken with a grain of salt. N=1 doesn't cancel out the preponderance of evidence.
Of course a single counter-example is all that is needed to disprove a universal statement. That's as basic as it gets in propositional logics. If you have never taken propositional logics or have forgotten some of its key tenets, I even did the legwork for you, see sub-section 9.1 of this book on logical proof.
Also, in most contexts, a preponderance of evidence is anything >50% (aka most). Are you actually trying to say what you wrote applies to anyone or only to most people (which is moving the goal-post and not sticking to your original phrasing).
As a reminder to yourself (since your last post waffles re: whether the statement applies to anyone or whether it applies to most). Your original statement reads as follows.
mathematics wrote:
I think we have to agree to slightly disagree on this one. If everything OP says is very strictly true then absolutely something weird is going on under the hood. That's a gigantic if though. I'm not making any moral judgements or calling or OP, but anyone saying they've been consistent in their diet and exercise should be taken with a grain of salt. It's tiny changes over time that are hard to notice. There's also a social incentive to believe that the issue isn't food. Nobody wants to think of themselves as a glutton, so the mind constantly skews the memory of eating habits. It's a tale as old as processed foods.I get that your username is not "logics", but I'd have expected more from someone calling him/herself "mathematics".