@maxdancona,
First, because off the very old, and rightly revered statistical principle of the fallacy of the enumeration of favorable circumstances. Suppose you allege that all i ever do is argue with what you post. If, every time you post, and i
don't argue with you, you wrote that in a notebook, and kept a separate count of the number of posts you made which i did argue with, you'd have a base line from which to form a reasonable comparison. You'd then be able to make a statistically reliable statement about the claim, providing there were sufficient data for a statistically significant sample. To merely say, however "you always do that" without having a statistical leg to stand on is fallacious.
But people don't do that (carefully catalogue information) in such cases, which is one reason, the main reason, why anecdotal information is justifiably dismissed in scientific research.
Your claims about scientific support for this thesis and flawed methodology are mere
ipse dixit pronouncements. We have no reason to assume that they are true just because you say so. Nor do we have any reason to dismiss those pronouncements. Scientifically speaking, though, they are meaningless unless you can substantiate your claims.
It is never valid to use anecdotal information to establish whether or not any claim or thesis is "scientific." It's fine to be skeptical--but claiming a thesis is not valid because you are not satisfied with the amount of data or the methodology is just as false a position as it would be to claim it
is a valid thesis despite a lack of data or a questionable methodology. The only valid response is "I don't know."
