Sigh... Look, you obviously don't understand what 'peer review' is. However, the first two sentences of your first paragraph are fine. And, you're right... I know neither things, nor do you. However, subsequent experiments should then unveil the truth -- which they didn't. (and, if you read the readily available Rosenau experiment... it's quite detailed).
Does it disprove (HIV, Influenza...etc)... well... no. Obviously not. So then there should be experiments that prove those... which there aren't.
Sophistry... okay, but nowhere did I claim what you claim that I claimed. The issue is that (a) one experiment claimed no transmission... and then no other experiments in the history of science superseded it.
As for your ad-hominems. What's the point? Experiment is the basis of science. Yes, I only gave one example, but then you should be rife with counter-examples set in impeccably perfect physical conditions that show a viral transmission. Good luck.
However, subsequent experiments should then unveil the truth -- which they didn't.
So you're saying nobody replicated these findings on the spanish flu?
(and, if you read the readily available Rosenau experiment... it's quite detailed).
So what? In like 2010 there was a very detailed and highly complex experiment preformed at the LHC where they claimed to have measured particles traveling faster than the speed of light.
The claim went viral. It was all over the internet for an entire news cycle. Years later anyone who was aware enough to seek out an update to that story would have seen it turns out they actually were using faulty math to calibrate their sensors. But that story never went viral.
An experiment or being extremely detailed and thorough is not a substitute for independently replicating the findings.
So again.... Have the findings of the "Rosenau experiment" been replicated or not?
Does it disprove (HIV, Influenza...etc)... well... no. Obviously not. So then there should be experiments that prove those... which there aren't.
There are.... There absolutely are...
I'll take 50 virus deniers and inject them with blood from an HIV positive person.
Then I'll take 50 sane people, and inject them with blood from a person who is HIV negative.
Then 10 years later I'll measure how many from each group are still alive, and do an analysis on the cause of death for the ones who aren't.
BOOM!!!!! There ya go...
As for your ad-hominems. What's the point? Experiment is the basis of science.
You can take it as an ad-hom if you want... But I'm still gonna stand by my point that it seems like you haven't studied epistemology at all, and doing so will greatly benefit you in many areas of your life, not just your ability to win internet debates.
For someone that talks about epistemology... Look, the rosenau experiment suggested that viral transmission doesn't exist. There are no counter-experiments from the Spanish Flu that demonstrate that viruses do exist. Since you're a 'logic' guy you should recognize that at best the virus hypothesis is not disproven.
I'm sorry to go ad-hominem myself, but your level of stupidity is astonishing.
Have the findings of the "Rosenau experiment" been replicated or not?
Who cares? The issue is -- has the viral model been replicated via experiment... no... only 'epidemiologically'.
I'll take 50 virus deniers and inject them with blood from an HIV positive person.
You can do one better. You can give us full blood transfusions! Go ahead -- look into the evidence of your 'experiment'.
You could also just let doctors and nurses interact with 'infected' people and... oh wait, that's done every day, so I guess that the results are clear!
Since you're a 'logic' guy you should recognize that at best the virus hypothesis is not disproven.
Okay bro... Again not wanting to sound like a broken record, but please study epistemology.
Go to youtube and just watch some videos on "street epistemology" and "the Socratic method"... That's a good place to start. Pretty entertaining too most of the time.
One of the first topics you'll come across is how to accurately assign the burden of proof and what it really means when it's not met.
Your statement here is an inversion of the burden of proof.
Who cares? The issue is -- has the viral model been replicated via experiment... no... only 'epidemiologically'.
Yes... The viral model gets replicated every time you go to costco healthy, and get sick 3 days later because one of the 2,000 people you were around sneezed near you.
Yes.... It's totally trivial and easy to prove that a viral infection can pass from person to person. You can deny it's a virus causing the illness, but you can not deny that the illness is contagious.
You can do one better. You can give us full blood transfusions! Go ahead -- look into the evidence of your 'experiment'.
I have.... Turns out it's bad for your health to receive HIV blood...
Sigh... Look, you obviously don't understand what 'peer review' is. However, the first two sentences of your first paragraph are fine. And, you're right... I know neither things, nor do you. However, subsequent experiments should then unveil the truth -- which they didn't. (and, if you read the readily available Rosenau experiment... it's quite detailed).
Does it disprove (HIV, Influenza...etc)... well... no. Obviously not. So then there should be experiments that prove those... which there aren't.
Sophistry... okay, but nowhere did I claim what you claim that I claimed. The issue is that (a) one experiment claimed no transmission... and then no other experiments in the history of science superseded it.
As for your ad-hominems. What's the point? Experiment is the basis of science. Yes, I only gave one example, but then you should be rife with counter-examples set in impeccably perfect physical conditions that show a viral transmission. Good luck.
So you're saying nobody replicated these findings on the spanish flu?
So what? In like 2010 there was a very detailed and highly complex experiment preformed at the LHC where they claimed to have measured particles traveling faster than the speed of light.
The claim went viral. It was all over the internet for an entire news cycle. Years later anyone who was aware enough to seek out an update to that story would have seen it turns out they actually were using faulty math to calibrate their sensors. But that story never went viral.
An experiment or being extremely detailed and thorough is not a substitute for independently replicating the findings.
So again.... Have the findings of the "Rosenau experiment" been replicated or not?
There are.... There absolutely are...
I'll take 50 virus deniers and inject them with blood from an HIV positive person.
Then I'll take 50 sane people, and inject them with blood from a person who is HIV negative.
Then 10 years later I'll measure how many from each group are still alive, and do an analysis on the cause of death for the ones who aren't.
BOOM!!!!! There ya go...
You can take it as an ad-hom if you want... But I'm still gonna stand by my point that it seems like you haven't studied epistemology at all, and doing so will greatly benefit you in many areas of your life, not just your ability to win internet debates.
For someone that talks about epistemology... Look, the rosenau experiment suggested that viral transmission doesn't exist. There are no counter-experiments from the Spanish Flu that demonstrate that viruses do exist. Since you're a 'logic' guy you should recognize that at best the virus hypothesis is not disproven.
I'm sorry to go ad-hominem myself, but your level of stupidity is astonishing.
Who cares? The issue is -- has the viral model been replicated via experiment... no... only 'epidemiologically'.
You can do one better. You can give us full blood transfusions! Go ahead -- look into the evidence of your 'experiment'.
You could also just let doctors and nurses interact with 'infected' people and... oh wait, that's done every day, so I guess that the results are clear!
Okay bro... Again not wanting to sound like a broken record, but please study epistemology.
Go to youtube and just watch some videos on "street epistemology" and "the Socratic method"... That's a good place to start. Pretty entertaining too most of the time.
One of the first topics you'll come across is how to accurately assign the burden of proof and what it really means when it's not met.
Your statement here is an inversion of the burden of proof.
Yes... The viral model gets replicated every time you go to costco healthy, and get sick 3 days later because one of the 2,000 people you were around sneezed near you.
Yes.... It's totally trivial and easy to prove that a viral infection can pass from person to person. You can deny it's a virus causing the illness, but you can not deny that the illness is contagious.
I have.... Turns out it's bad for your health to receive HIV blood...
Who would've thought?!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contaminated_haemophilia_blood_products
Bruv: You've obviously been raised very well, because, despite our arguments, you've been very polite. Thank you. Or, maybe, thank your parents.