你怎么得出猴子是“为了公正”而没有吃葡萄？

下面是上次对你的质疑。
http://www.xys.org/forum/db/10/95/198.html

非常感谢指向Frans de Wall的文章。刚刚看了他放在自己脸书上的最近一篇文章，其中只提到没有得到葡萄吃的猴子拒绝吃黄瓜，(这与台湾中央研究院的王道还老师讲的实验是一样的)，而没有你所说的得到葡萄的猴子拒绝吃葡萄，更没有他逻辑论证那猴子是“为了公正”而拒绝吃葡萄的讲法。

------
Testing two monkeys at a time, we offered each a pebble, which they could return for a cucumber slice. Alternating between them, both monkeys happily bartered twenty-five times in a row. The atmosphere turned sour, however, as soon as we introduced inequity. One monkey would stay on cucumber, but its partner now received grapes, which monkeys like a whole lot better. Seeing their partner munching on juicy grapes, the disadvantaged monkey got agitated, hurling his pebbles out of the test chamber, and even those paltry cucumber slices. A food normally devoured with gusto had become distasteful.
------

我相信，有时候有可能可以观察到某些猴子在某些场合没有吃平常它喜欢吃的东西的现象。但是，这样的偶然观察到的偶然现象，可以被总结为科学结论，并在科普文章中加以宣传吗？

我们要做科普的内容，不是应该只取那些符合科学实验设计要求的、已经公开发表的、并得到科学界公认的科研成果吗？如果这个猴子的观察得到的偶然现象就可以称为科学结论，我们有什么不同的逻辑可以用来反驳那些“中医科学理论”？