You've put your foot in it again. The clichť will typically refer to raw data, given basic statistical analysis will lead to spurious conclusion. Its imperative that empirical bias is monitored, ensuring properly conducted hypothesis testing.
Blah, blah, blah for ignore the facts, listen to the two men in the white lab coats.
Religion isnít so much about telling man that there is God as about preventing man from thinking that he is God.
You're not making sense here. The majority of the available empirical studies, reflecting the influence of US academia and the abundance of the data availability, is US specific. The evidence just doesn't support your dogma. You need to adapt!
Sorry Reiv, I'll stick with the raw data because you have shown nothing to prove your hypothesis at this point.
You demand tabloidism because of complexity. In reality (and reality isn't your friend here my ole china), its that complexity that ensures the need for empirical analysis rather than spurious spurt. You're attacking yourself without realising it
No, I just want a straight answer with none of the trimings.