> As if there hasn't been any economic incentives during COVID... If you want to debate, do it in good faith. I will reply to your other points, but I am not going to go any further when you aren't honest.
Sure there were some economic incentives, granted, but it's pennies in comparison. Covid policy became such a hot potato because it became strongly associated with controverisal political figures. It was really a proxy war for an entirely different conflict.
> That's not the proof of germ theory, as spontaneous generation will pretend those "little critters" appeared after the illness, aren't the cause for it.
Even so given it's possible to take a sample of bacteria, expose a subject to the sample, and the subject will become ill; and this can be repeated many times reliably, making it hard to defend spontaneous generation.
> And how does that work for viruses? There is AIDS denial at the higher levels of science (like Duesberg, or the very "inventor" of PCR, Nobel prize Kary Mullis) who argue that aids is caused by "lifestyle" and antiviral treatment, not by HIV. Have they not "seen" HIV in electron microscopes?
Well so what if a scientist questions a theory? Einstein was an outspoken skeptic of quantum physics, this sort of doubt is a central part of the scientific process.
Being wrong about things is in many ways the default epistemilogical state as a human being. It's ok to be wrong. I'm wrong about things. You're wrong about things. We're all wrong about things all the time. Even acclaimed scientists get things wrong.
This is why we should hold our opinions about things tentatively. That, not nihilism, is at the core of being a skeptic.
> And then doubt any "demonstration" ad infinitum. Sceptics just answer any proof - any data that would shut down their doubts - with more doubt, until it is all a planetary conspiracy by the New World Order.
Nothing is certain therefore this one particular conspiracy theory is a given? I don't think this sounds particularly skeptical. I'll grant many self-proclaimed skeptics are only skeptics with regard to things they do not already believe, but this practice is not a fool's skepticism.
> As if there hasn't been any economic incentives during COVID... If you want to debate, do it in good faith. I will reply to your other points, but I am not going to go any further when you aren't honest.
Sure there were some economic incentives, granted, but it's pennies in comparison. Covid policy became such a hot potato because it became strongly associated with controverisal political figures. It was really a proxy war for an entirely different conflict.
> That's not the proof of germ theory, as spontaneous generation will pretend those "little critters" appeared after the illness, aren't the cause for it.
Even so given it's possible to take a sample of bacteria, expose a subject to the sample, and the subject will become ill; and this can be repeated many times reliably, making it hard to defend spontaneous generation.
> And how does that work for viruses? There is AIDS denial at the higher levels of science (like Duesberg, or the very "inventor" of PCR, Nobel prize Kary Mullis) who argue that aids is caused by "lifestyle" and antiviral treatment, not by HIV. Have they not "seen" HIV in electron microscopes?
Well so what if a scientist questions a theory? Einstein was an outspoken skeptic of quantum physics, this sort of doubt is a central part of the scientific process.
Being wrong about things is in many ways the default epistemilogical state as a human being. It's ok to be wrong. I'm wrong about things. You're wrong about things. We're all wrong about things all the time. Even acclaimed scientists get things wrong.
This is why we should hold our opinions about things tentatively. That, not nihilism, is at the core of being a skeptic.
> And then doubt any "demonstration" ad infinitum. Sceptics just answer any proof - any data that would shut down their doubts - with more doubt, until it is all a planetary conspiracy by the New World Order.
Nothing is certain therefore this one particular conspiracy theory is a given? I don't think this sounds particularly skeptical. I'll grant many self-proclaimed skeptics are only skeptics with regard to things they do not already believe, but this practice is not a fool's skepticism.