Duggers was right about viruses

The only scientific explanation is a cow and a sparrow fornicated

 

It's going to take a lot of convincing that the title of this thread could ever be correct.

 

Santa doesn’t exist.

Chimneys aren’t real.

 

Sparrow flies back to join his buddies up on the power line. They ask him where he’s been. He chuckles and says “Boys, let me tell you …”

 

I'm impressed it could fly after that.

 

I was meaning to dredge up my Viruses Aren’t Real thread.

Thanks for saving me the trouble!

 

Personally, I’m surprised that more virologists don’t believe in Santa Claus, given their penchant for finding imaginary things.

 

Wait until we see entire crossbred flocks. It’s going to get messy out there

 

Duggars ain't ever been right about nothin.

 

“nothin” is more or less what virologists have.

 

When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.

-Issac Asimov

 

Arguably virologists are “wronger” than their predecessors, the scientists of their time who postulated that the earth was flat. At least they didn’t stubbornly cling to hypotheses that were unfounded and undercut.

 

Again, this is your opinion. What we’ve never established is, among all Earthly opinions, why it is that yours deserves priority. If yours deserves printing in the encyclopedia, why not mine? Or anyone else’s?

As always, Charles Sanders Peirce saw this problem well: “Unless truth be recognized as public, - as that of which any person would come to be convinced if he carried his inquiry, his sincere search for immovable belief, far enough, - then there will be nothing to prevent each one of us from adopting an utterly futile belief of his own which all the rest will disbelieve. Each one will set himself up as a little prophet; that is, a little “crank,” a half-witted victim of his own narrowness.”

 

Although I can well imagine those early flat-earthers snarling, nostrils flaring, leering, throwing feces and centuries past equivalents of memes at their skeptics.

 

I wonder how long the flat-earthers were able to hold the oblate spheroidists at bay with, “Well, that’s just your opinion! Why should anyone accord you equal consideration ?” ?

 

Even if you’ve given up on people acquiescing to your perspective, you clearly haven’t stopped believing that they should do so.

 

Do you thing the early oblate spheroidists were like, “You know, opinions are like ass****s. Everyone has one. Here’s one you might want to consider.” ?

 

My guess is not long, since the alternative view was attractive to the scientific community at the time. You believe that the spherical Earthers of old deserved a hearing on their views. Do you believe the same of the flat Earthers of today? Do their views deserve the equal consideration?

You seem to think I’m specifically against your views, but I am not. I am not specifically against anyone’s views. And this is a problem because different people’s views are contradictory, so I cannot accept them all. By what method should I be discerning these views? You seem be arguing that this should be based on evidence, but this ignores that the biologists too appeal to evidence. Indeed, almost their entire training is based on discerning evidence. So I think it is a necessary question to ask why you should believe yourself to better handle evidence than the rest of the scientific community.