TarHeelEMT wrote:
In reply to:
I didn't realize you were talking about alcohol. I thought you were talking about HDL-C per se
Haha, no. My fault for not being more clear.
In reply to:
Right. I never said I was certain. You said I was certain.
I'm pretty sure what got me going was the statement "
For one thing, because it increases serum HDL-cholesterol, so it's protective against heart disease.," since it doesn't necessarily follow that anything that raises HDL is protective against heart disease. You did acknowledge that it was more complicated than that, so I probably didn't give you enough credit for nuance.
In reply to:
I agree that it's not proven, but I think that the phrase "only hypothesized" is misleading.
It depends. I'm ok with saying it, because to me the word hypothesis implies at least a reasonable body of evidence, with many carrying a substantial body of evidence. Different people have different understandings of the term, though, and I suppose RC.com is not a place where you'd assume I was speaking with that understanding.
Kind of a moot point for the topic but since when does a hypothesis imply "a reasonable body of evidence"? It doesn't even depend on you definition of reasonable. The term hypothesis, especially in the scientific field has Zero contingencies on evidence. Really a hypothesis can be a total shot in the dark. A hypothesis can be merely conjecture.
I know its just semantics but you need to be right when you try to take an authoritative position.
