I don't see any direct, empirical neuroscientific evidence in that "Evidence" tab. Unfortunately, many psychology experiments allow you to fit any remotely reasonable theory to the data.

So then you'd agree that there is as much empirical evidence for a dual process model as there is for many other models. This seems a little broader than your original claim that there is "just no empirical evidence for a dual process model", which suggests that there is evidence for a more realistic model which should be preferred.

>So then you'd agree that there is as much empirical evidence for a dual process model as there is for many other models.

No, because a dual process model spreads itself too thin: it doesn't coherently explain many experiments with a single theory, but instead rewrites the theory for every distinct experiment.

I just wanted to let you know I really appreciated your calm and above all clear method of refuting what I saw as the core problem in my brain modeling classes (years ago). I never got past the "you're just making this up aren't you" stage, being countered with "no we are not but we also can't explain why".

Thank you, very much! I used to be absurdly terrible at this and get into absurd internet arguments, so I've been trying to speak more like my neuro adviser when I have to discuss the subject. She says she still gets heaps of pushback when she tries to speak against "brains are made of modular blobs" theories, in no small part thanks to plain sexism.