Earlier quoted context omitted.
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".