First off, I am not taking sides in the camping issue. Both arguments boil down to inferences made from personal observation. The irony is that you dismiss the argument of those who that say camping occurs as being non-scientific because it is just personal observation, but your own argument is based on your personal obervation that this does not actually occur. You cannot have your cake and eat it, Daomei.
However, when you place your self as an 'scientific expert' who can look own on us lowly mortals who were not 'scientifically educated', you will be able to explain exactly what your methodology was in testing your own hypothesis that camping does not occur? What are these empirical tests that the camping arguement fails to pass? Where is your data? How did you try disprove your own hypothesis? How does your hypothesis that camping does not occur and is just paranoia pass empirical tests?
However, when you place your self as an 'scientific expert' who can look own on us lowly mortals who were not 'scientifically educated', you will be able to explain exactly what your methodology was in testing your own hypothesis that camping does not occur? What are these empirical tests that the camping arguement fails to pass? Where is your data? How did you try disprove your own hypothesis? How does your hypothesis that camping does not occur and is just paranoia pass empirical tests?
---