daverupa wrote:There can be no convincing evidence given to one who is suspicious of the standards of evidence being used. Those who disagree with the scientific consensus must argue against either the science itself, or the motives for the consensus. Therefore, this discussion might usefully continue (elsewhere) as a general foray into epistemology with a focus on what it means to have "good evidence" for something.
You're trying to draw lines in the sand while the tides coming in. Science just
means knowledge, so talking about science is not a "foray" into epistemology. It is
empistemology! "Suspicion"/scepticism (not to be confused with absolute dout) is a necessary condition for good
science. Have you ever taken a course in statistics, resarch methods, philosophy of science, the history of science? I have. I'm not just blowing smoke. That's why it's so easy
for me to spot bad
science (and my masters degree is a masters of science
). Your "point" amounts to no more than an inappropriate use of an argumentum ad populum unlike my appropriate use of an argumentum ad verecundiam.
If scientific consensus and peer review were "the gold standard of science" (
) we'd still be believing with most scientiists/epistemologists in the 1600s that the earth is motionless. Galileo disproved Aristotle's physics--which held that heavy objects fall faster than lighter ones, in direct proportion to weight--with his famous Tower of Pisa experiments, which flew in the face of the then accepted "scientifc consensus."
daverupa wrote:Otherwise, I find that conspiracy theories render the individual who holds them incapable of equanimous conversation. It's definitely the third and worst field to hope seed will take root within.
This devloves to name-calling via defamation innuendo. Scepticism, iteration, critical thinking and counter-induction are necessary for good
science/epistemology. Conclusiveness is the enemy of knowledge. So please stop mis-labelling things that appeaar
contrary to your precious opinions. Calling things you merely disagree with "conspiratorial" itself inhibits "equanimous conversation."