When it comes to one's own habits it's better to be safe than sorry. After all it's pretty well known you won't be harmed from a lack of these sweeteners. I sure won't go spreading fear about it with this level of evidence, though.
I think getting an interesting result from a sample of seven people is enough to say a larger study should try to reproduce the experiment. It's not really big enough to stand on its own for anything more than that.
I would hold that all three of your choices are opinion, although #3 would be the consensus opinion. My disagreement here revolves around the random selection more than anything. If you said "average high school band student" that would be a stronger statement because of course both Mozart and Bach are far beyond average. When you say randomly selected there's the matter of pre-selection probability and post-selection actuality. Some high school band student may actually be better, although it's unlikely.
It would still be subjective until axioms about what makes a good composition and therefore a good composer are agreed upon. Most people, though, would agree. There are some things that are nearly universally agreed that come very close to the weright fact, but are still very widely held opinions.
Now, if you doctored the proposition just a bit to say "Either Mozart or Bach are considered by the vast majority of people to have been a better composer than any given high school band student" that's something upon which data could be collected and therefore factual.
Unfalsifiable in fact does not mean false. It also does not mean true. Unfalsifiable does mean unprovable and nonfactual. You can't have a fact unless it's falsifiable. That's part of the definition of a fact: even if it's true there's the possibility to attempt to show it is false.
Science is concerned with hypotheses (testable statements) and repeatable observations (empirical facts). If you can't test it repeatedly and observe it repeatedly then it's not science.
There's a big difference between "not scientific" and "anti-scientific".
You can disingenuously try to put whatever words you like into my mouth to build whatever strawman you like. I'm just tired of hearing the religious anti-science crowd and the science-minded folks baiting and presenting meaningless arguments back and forth. If someone's worldview is completely inconsistent with someone else's, that's no reason for them to try to make idiotic cross-boundary arguments adding noise to public fora.
Unfortunately many people have never learned to deal with cognitive dissonance very well. There have been great scientists who believed one thing as religious truth and who supported the objective evidence within a scientific model at the same time.
Allegory, fable, parable, subjective experience, and unobservable conjecture about spirits and deities is not anti-science or counter to science. The problem is when people try to conflate their by definition subjective, unobservable, untestable beliefs with what by definition must be objective, observable, and testable.
Religion and theology are informed by a wholly different part of philosophy than is science. Science assumes an acceptance of objectivism, which is anathema to most religions (in fact any religion with a supernatural explanation for anything). It's no wonder they are incompatible.
If someone wants to have faith in something, I have no issue with that. If they want everything proven to them, I have no problem with that. If they want to separate one form the other, I even have no problem with that. If, however, they want to bash science because it's not in accords with their scary invisible, inaudible, uncommunicative, unobservable supreme being in another existence then they need to step back and consider that their religion is not at all even germane to the discussion of science.
I'm sure they would, too. But what's Comcast's complaint about Tor? How is a VPN any less anonymous once you're tunneled through their network to somewhere else and how is the traffic any less hidden?
I turned in their modem because it was crap and I bought my own. It's been two months and I'm still fighting the modem lease fee they're still charging me. Going to the service center is not a cure-all.
In the US it is legal in every state to record a phone call if all parties are aware it's being recorded. In some states only one end of the call needs to be aware. IANAL but in some two-party states the fact that Comcast tells you they can records the call may give you an equal right to do so without notice. You can always tell them they are being recorded, though.
A VPN? That's hiding internet traffic from them, which is precisely their problem with Tor.
Hey, Comcast, continuing to charge me for a modem lease fee when I'm not leasing your piece of crap modem is not so-to-speak "legal". So why after dealing with your customer disservice personnel twice are you continuing to charge me an $8 a month fee for something you can't so-to-speak "legally" charge me?
This company needs to wither and die. The problem is the only other realistic choice where I live is AT&T. If I move across town I can get Time Warner who is almost as bad and about to be just as bad with the merger.
The public service commissions and the municipalities that grant them buildout rights are the only way to deal with this crap, as the FCC has proven useless.
Did you by any chance use the same unique string of random crap at some third-party site where you used your email address as a verification email?
Or look at Bob Noyce (physicist) and Gordon Moore (chemist).