I’ve been pondering whether it makes sense to respond in earnest. I assume good faith on your side, so let me try.
> It's like asking for data to prove gravity exists.
This is at least how physics majors start. From first principles. You know, scientists.
Getting emotional due to your own assumptions about someone else usually effects the exact opposite of what you’re trying to achieve. Which, I assume, is mutual understanding.
> Asking for data implies it's yet to be proven
No, why?
> Do you have data disproving the current academic consensus?
How often has consensus failed, even very recently? If the data is strong, what harm is there in reiterating the data and the conclusions out of it so that everyone understands?
I’m not saying this from a high horse. Over the years I’ve had many emotional moments when challenged about what is true or right. In hindsight most of these moments came from my own inability to exactly lay out the logical chain of an argument that I’d made, where I’d followed the consensus.
It's an unwritten rule in social interaction that when you discuss a topic, you question it by asking for data on it. Signalling scepticism.
You can replay this in an LLM and ask how common people would interpret such a reply as you made. I believe you'll find it's exactly as my reply stated.
The real issue is that you are questioning an academic consensus. It's not you, not me, not the baker down the street. It's a very large, global, group of academics with many years or research to substantiate their claims.
If you want to investigate the topic it's on you to find the data and study it. I'd question your sanity if you actually did that. Because I'll wager you're not equipped to interpret the data, so you'd first have to train for the maths and science, before moving on to interpreting the data and deciding whether or not you agree with it.
For most people it makes more sense to respect the academic consensus. Even knowing that it can change if new discoveries are made. Because that's what science is about.
Has the consensus ever failed?
The question belies the false belief that it shoudn't ever fail.
The entire idea of science is predicated on it failing and leading to new discoveries.
Hence it's on you to provide new data. That's science.
Sitting in an armchair questioning if science is accurate is exactly like questioning whether gravity exists. You know nothing either way, unless you measure it and provide data,
