|
So, the BE naysayers complain there is not enough data to support BE's conclusions, and then to support their conclusions, they cite to one set of BE bearings with wear and one set of VAC without.
How can one, with a straight face, say that BE needs more data to prove their conclusions and then cite to two bearing sets to support that conclusion? Or cite to the fact that you used VAC and your engine runs good, therefore they are both equivalent options?
False equivalence. BE=using a pile of measured data + industry standard = a working theory. You=I used VAC; or "I took apart one engine=BE is wrong and I'm right.
I'm not biased because I chose BE; rather, I'm biased because BE is the ONLY group who chose to publish real data. Rather than spouting conclusory statements like "they're biased," cite to some evidence or data that proves it.
|