Scientists conclude that it was not a Wuhan lab leak

And after all, how can two billion Muslims be wrong ? And who are you to question 1,700 years of Islamic scholarship ?

 

We’ve had this conversation before. My point isn’t about numbers of people but about your claim regarding the supremacy of research. Let’s apply your approach: A committed Muslim says to you that you’ve simply haven’t done enough research into Islam to see its truth, and he can’t help anyone unwilling to do the research. Does that sound convincing?

 

I’ve merely reflected your two fallacies here: (1) numbers and (2) authority.

 

BTW, how are you doing with the autism/vaccine excerpts ?

 

Again, I’ve made neither claim. I’ve only argued against the idea that research alone leads to concluding that viruses don’t exist, which was your claim.

 

I don’t believe virologists ponder the feasibility of their system any more than most ponder the feasibility of their religion. After all, who wants to study their way out of a cushy job ?

 

I never felt that I fully understood the structure of the website. The articles I found were often not quite in line with the claim of the website, but I couldn’t tell if they were supposed to be included in that 200 number, so I didn’t want to use them against it.

 

It’s possible (though this reasoning would cast doubt on all disciplines), but these people weren’t always virologists and presumably would have had to accept the claims of the field before entering.

 

Correct, there is a sense in which most if not all fields are captive. You have to go along to get along.

Now I’m not arguing that all fields are outright fraudulent.

But why are so few willing to shine the light on their own endeavors ? I have and it has twice incurred somewhat painful costs and the necessity of career changes.

That said, it is easier for the outsider to question a field. But I suspect that fear of ostracism is a major impediment.

And the irony of such as RFK Jr.’s railing against lockdowns and vaccine mandates but refusing to question virology: he’s already widely considered to be a loon.

 

Having twice questioned my profession - and seeing that my world didn’t fall apart - probably made it easier to go for broke regarding someone else’s field.

 

This view is similar to Thomas Kuhn’s famous concept of “paradigms”. I think we all likely accept the idea that members of a given tribe are less likely than outsiders to question the fundamental assumptions of their group, but this fact doesn’t lead us to an obvious solution, as it is virtually always the case that the outside critics belong to tribes of their own.

I think you’re highlighting the key feature to truth seeking, which is tolerance of criticism. While many scientists have closed their mental doors to minority ideas, I believe the field of science is still open to criticism that is backed by evidence. This was shown in the publishing of the study that showed college students exhibit a small amount of ESP when it comes to erotic images (APA PsycNet). Such a claim seems to be at least as contrary to orthodoxy as the idea that viruses don’t exist. Yet it was published because the analysis of the experiment was in line with the discipline standard. This finding, unsurprisingly, failed to replicate and is not included in the pantheon of psychological knowledge today, but it was given its due. Scientific paradigms can shift, as Kuhn himself noted, but advocates for change do need to provide scientific justification.

 

I only insist that virologists provide evidence for viruses. They do not and apparently cannot. I am not obligated to instantiate a counter-system. It is enough for me to be free of the fear of contagion. Nonetheless, I am growing in my understanding of Terrain Theory. I just don’t ascribe to turpentine and coffee enemas and such. Although they’re arguably safer than vaccines.

 

All scientists insist theories are backed by evidence, and the evidence provided in this case is sufficient for most biologists, including myself. What we appear to require here is evidence that is sufficient for you in particular. To that end, our key question is this:

What evidence, if it existed, would it take to convince you that viruses are real?

 

My betters have gone before on that matter …

The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement - Dr Sam Bailey

 

Have you had your allowable allotment of Trump’s vaccine ?

 

PSA: don’t feed the troll.

 

https://theweek.com/articles/445615/time-kill-word-troll

 

Its a solid list, but I don’t think it has enough detail. Eg how would we know when we have electron micrographs “to confirm the successful purification of morphologically-identical alleged viral particles”? If the many thousands of EM images of viruses that we have aren’t good enough, what exactly would make them better?