Scott
Verified User
No, arguing one side can be bad even if one's argument is completely rational. It all depends on whether those you're arguing with are open enough to make it worthwhile to try to persuade them.
APP - Do biological viruses actually exist?
- Thread starter Scott
- Start date
No, arguing one side can be bad even if one's argument is completely rational. It all depends on whether those you're arguing with are open enough to make it worthwhile to try to persuade them.
Scott
Verified User
You're constructing a straw man argument. I never said nor implied that "the entirety of the scientific/medical world (public and private, on every continent) [got] together [to] manufacture the lie of biological viruses". What's happened here is more like scientology. Perhaps you believe in scientology. Most people don't. It's a religion that asserts its scientific. I think Wikipedia reveals the truth here:
**
Hubbard initially developed a set of pseudoscientific ideas that he represented as a form of therapy, which he called Dianetics.
**
Source:
Scientology - Wikipedia
I classify virology as much the same. Do people who believe in virology have to be lying? Ofcourse not, just like scientologists can fervently believe that scientology is scientific. It doesn't change the fact that it's not though.
Scott
Verified User
Lol
. I don't actually smoke it, perhaps in part because I have a lung condition so anything smoked is a problem for me. I do use a cream that has cbd oil in it for rashes and other skin issues though, quite good.
Scott
Verified User
As you know, I don't believe biological viruses even exist, but this is irrelevant to the point I was making. Since the microbes alleged to be biological viruses have never been isolated in the common definition of the term, there's no solid evidence that they actually exist. Bacteria -can- be isolated using the common definition of the term. This doesn't mean that all diseases attributed to a given bacteria are in fact actually caused by said bacteria, but at least everyone can agree that bacterias themselves do in fact exist.
Circular logic on your part. Viruses don't exist so therefore nothing fits the definition of a virus.
We are still at you refusing to look at the thousands of papers that show viruses do exist and rely on your 2 sources that say they don't exist.
This is still your argument -
Scott: - As to your papers, I'm not going to read any of them at this time,
Scott: - I have yet to find a study that provides solid evidence that biological viruses are real.
Until you actually read and respond to at least 5 of the papers you are simply arguing that because you refuse to look at evidence therefore the evidence doesn't exist.
You can show that viruses don't exist by explaining with actual evidence that what is claimed to be a virus is something else.
Your refusal to accept that you can do that shows it's you that is the one using pseudoscience when you claim a virus can't be falsified just like a white swan could be falsified. You only need to show that a virus is actually something else.
Correct. And clearly you have demonstrated that you are not open enough to be persuaded. This is you refusing to look at or respond to any evidence and then claiming that evidence doesn't exist because you refused to look at it. -
Scott: - As to your papers, I'm not going to read any of them at this time,
Scott: - I have yet to find a study that provides solid evidence that biological viruses are real.
The only thing that seems to relevant to this discussion is your complete lack of integrity and honesty when it comes to looking at the evidence.
This is you -
Scott: - As to your papers, I'm not going to read any of them at this time,
Scott: - I have yet to find a study that provides solid evidence that biological viruses are real.
I have given links to 30 papers showing that viruses exist and you have refused to read or respond to any of them. You just continue your circular argument from ignorance.
Scott
Verified User
You really need to read what I say carefully. I said I never relied -solely- on Pasteur's work to make the case that virology is pseudoscientific. I've certainly pointed out the pseudoscientific nature of a lot of his work to make a powerful case that one of virology's founders used pseudoscientific means to bolster his theory.
ThatOwlWoman
Not Nice
Lol
We don't smoke it either. We prefer edibles.
ZenMode
Well-known member
I'm not creating a strawman argument at all.You're constructing a straw man argument. I never said nor implied that "the entirety of the scientific/medical world (public and private, on every continent) [got] together [to] manufacture the lie of biological viruses". What's happened here is more like scientology. Perhaps you believe in scientology. Most people don't. It's a religion that asserts its scientific. I think Wikipedia reveals the truth here:
**
Hubbard initially developed a set of pseudoscientific ideas that he represented as a form of therapy, which he called Dianetics.
**
Source:
Scientology - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I classify virology as much the same. Do people who believe in virology have to be lying? Ofcourse not, just like scientologists can fervently believe that scientology is scientific. It doesn't change the fact that it's not though.
If you believe that biological viruses don't exist, but you also acknowledge that the entirety, or maybe just 99.99%, of the scientific world tells us that they do exist, then you also have to believe that there was some coordination at some point, to keep the lie alive, right?
And not only a one-time event, but some kind of ongoing activities to keep all new scientists, doctors etc on board with the lie.
If you don't believe that to be the case, then explain to me how the entirety of the scientific world, past and present, manages to stay coordinated with the lie.
You certainly are leaning hard into your logical fallacy. Pasteur's work doesn't invalidate 150 years of science since then.
This is you when it comes to actually looking at evidence.
Scott: - As to your papers, I'm not going to read any of them at this time,
Scott: - I have yet to find a study that provides solid evidence that biological viruses are real.
Your refusal to even look at any science other than your few biased sources shows us how disingenuous you are. I provide links to 30 different scientific papers and you continue to claim you have seen no evidence after refusing to even look at the papers.
So you are saying that your belief in "no viruses" is like Scientology, where they pretend that it has something to do with science by making it almost part of the name?You're constructing a straw man argument. I never said nor implied that "the entirety of the scientific/medical world (public and private, on every continent) [got] together [to] manufacture the lie of biological viruses". What's happened here is more like scientology. Perhaps you believe in scientology. Most people don't. It's a religion that asserts its scientific. I think Wikipedia reveals the truth here:
**
Hubbard initially developed a set of pseudoscientific ideas that he represented as a form of therapy, which he called Dianetics.
**
Source:
Scientology - Wikipedia
I classify virology as much the same. Do people who believe in virology have to be lying? Ofcourse not, just like scientologists can fervently believe that scientology is scientific. It doesn't change the fact that it's not though.
As it stands, the scientific method has isolated thousands and thousands of viruses, but your pseudoscientific papers that pretend "science" have convinced you, like a Scientologist is convinced by pseudoscience, that this evidence isn't really evidence because three books you reference repeatedly...