Yes, I'm sure you're a completely unbiased source of whether or not you're an unbiased source and you're not discounting all the times this didn't happen because you didn't bother to note the occurrence.
I don't think I'm unbiased? I just believe I'm taking the bias into consideration. Pointing out an obvious bias isn't a useful counterargument, it's just a way of saying "whatever you think you've noticed in your life, ignore it, you will always be wrong". Intellectually it's a complete non-starter, it's just a way to write off impressions you don't agree with (instead of, say, debating it, offering supporting or counter-evidence, etc). Obviously you are free to ignore the opinions of a random internet commenter, of course. But I like to mention what I've noticed in case it resonates (or anti-resonates) with any other casual readers.
What you are calling evidence is useless. You may believe you are taking the bias into consideration, but you can't actually know if you are or aren't. Your whole bit is the non-starter.
But my "counter-evidence" would simply be me saying "Well, I don't see that". To which you would respond that it was actually I who wasn't being observant. When there is no real way to determine that. And that discussion itself is intellectually bankrupt.
My pointing out that your recollection of casual observations and your self-assessment of how well you "took the bias into consideration" is debate. I'm questioning the source of your statistics.
Because even in this study, it's from 120 people. Total. Who self-reported they had never had artificial sweeteners.
And the other obvious thing is that you are also free to ignore my opinions. I like to mention when someone is offering biased anecdotes in place of substantive discussion. In case it resonates.
I would not respond that you are being unobservant if you disagreed with me. I'd find that interesting, and wait for more data points from other commenters. So far you had just doubted my observations instead of presenting any of your own though.
I'm not claiming you should draw any universal conclusions from my anecdotes! That's absurd. But there has got to be something between 'data is from a study' and 'data is meaningless'.
The one claim I have made that you should believe, though, is that I (and others, evidently) was expecting the surprise to be that science found artificial sweeteners to have no effect, since my prior for it mattering was so high. I was surprised that this result was a surprise to anyone.
You don't have data. Because the thing about biases is that they're often unconscious.
It's also a lot like the "bad toupee" effect. You think you're good at spotting toupees because you always notice when they're bad. But you don't notice when they're good, therefore they don't even factor into your dataset.
Which is why anecdotes are never data. There's no way to control the data coming in. And the filters we have on the data coming in are sometimes unknown.
I've never really seen a study on artificial sweeteners that ever propose an actual mechanism. And without fail, the study is done on rodents or rely on self-reporting to some degree or on very small sample sizes.
I don't have to present my own observations to point out flaws in your own observations. It's not a contest where "most observations" win or whatever.
I have no objection to 'anecdotes aren't data" or "you can't see your unconscious biases" or any of that.. I just think that responding to say "the things you think you have noticed are biased and therefore irrelevant and meaningless" is (a) a dick thing to say and (b) totally unnecessary, since it's both obvious and adds no information or interesting content to the discussion. Its only purpose is to put me down. And for what? To spread cynicism, apparently -- you seemed to think that if had contributed _your_ impression, I would dismiss it out of hand, but no, that's a You Thing. I'm interested in other people's impressions, and plenty of other people are too, even if you personally aren't.
