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...
Bro.... If i thought you were a stupid retarded idiot, I wouldn't hesitate to tell you. I know I've told many others that before.
I'm not here saying everything modern science thinks about viruses is true. I'm not even gonna pretend that I sit around reading books and doing studies on viruses. I'm sure a lot of new discoveries will get made that change a lot about what we think we know. I hope so at least.
But with this virus denial argument, I'm just going off some common sense that everyone knows contagious diseases are real.
In order for this argument to have merit, they shouldn't be real.... But they are.....
And until someone explains to me how a disease can still be contagious
without a self replicating pathogen causing it, common sense is gonna tell me to just trust medical science on this one, because your explanations are severely lacking.
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.
Bro.... If i thought you were a stupid retarded idiot, I wouldn't hesitate to tell you. I know I've told many others that before.
I'm not here saying everything modern science thinks about viruses is true. I'm not even gonna pretend that I sit around reading books and doing studies on viruses. I'm sure a lot of new discoveries will get made that change a lot about what we think we know. I hope so at least.
But with this virus denial argument, I'm just going off some common sense that everyone knows contagious diseases are real.
In order for this argument to have merit, they shouldn't be real.... But they are.....
And until someone explains to me how a disease can still be contagious without a self replicating pathogen causing it, common sense is gonna tell me to just trust medical science on this one, because your explanations are severely lacking.