I won't go that far with it, and this is because if I cannot isolate a virus in a lab, how could I possibly go about disproving a thing that I cannot prove exists? As they say, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Additionally, evidence of absence is not necessarily proof of absence.
I appreciated that section in particular. I have been struggling with explaining to those advocating for the non-existence of the immune system, or viruses, etc. why it doesn't sit well with me. You explained it exactly in that one paragraph. Oddly enough it is something I have pointed out about science numerous times.
Science can only be applied to things that can be observed.
It is useless when being applied to things it cannot observe.
Often people will state things do not exist because they cannot observe them.
Then we learn to observe them or create tools that enable us to do so and it turns out they do exist.
POOF did they suddenly come into existence because you could now observe them oh wonderful scientist?
Truth of the matter is stating things do not exist because you cannot observe them has nothing to do with science.
It's opinion.
Likewise stating something does exist that we cannot observe is also not science.
It is opinion, or speculation.
It could be wrong. It could be correct. It could be partially wrong. It could be partially correct.
I don't disagree with the people saying there are no viruses. I simply am not convinced. Though they have made me consider it a possibility which I hadn't really considered before. That is something at least...
Hey, thank you. This is all very well stated!
The post was amended with these two
links. (1), (2), the first of which is
short and will knock your socks off!
You would totally dig RAW's work!
That first video. Spot on. Exactly what I think both you and I have been concerned about for some time. You should do a post just as a transcript of that video that people can read. It is definitely worthy.
Great idea, if you want to, I'd def reblog it.
Otherwise might have to wait for later.
Yeah. I can't now. Doing some things for work.
If it hasn't been proven or observed it is only a hypothesis. Stefan Lanka has challenged the world to produce the proof of any virus. Science has made the claim that viruses exist and built whole industries on it.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" Sagan
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" Hitchens
No evidence, no existence.....
You are correct. Just a hypothesis.
As to "Evidence". That depends upon what people decide is evidence. You and I have already agreed on how they will dismiss anecdotal evidence.
Often people say things do not exist. Why? They haven't been able to find a way to measure it and make a repeatable experiment to back up their claims.
Yet later they learn to measure it and it did in fact exist.
Science is useless at disproving things unless it can observe them. It is completely based upon observation.
If the person decides they do or don't trust the source that tells them anecdotal information ultimately tends to be what leads them to say "it doesn't exist", "it exists", or just keep their mouths shut.
When one group, or person is the arbiter of what constitutes evidence then it becomes authoritarian. They begin dictating the rules.
It is fine if they personally have chosen to state "it doesn't exist".
That doesn't mean it is true.
Likewise, while the various razors are indeed pretty cool and useful for making decisions they are not always correct and treating them as such is a guaranteed path to eventual mistakes. How big a mistake... could be small, could be big. It depends upon what impact that mistake has.
I do like that Occam's Razor does leave the possibility in it for not being an absolute.
I've also been fond of Hanlon's Razor.
I do indeed like them. Yet I view them a tool that often (but not always) works.
Yes Occams Razor is my fave too, I use it a lot as well as 'common sense' which seems to be rare these days.
A friend just posted these 2 memes on my wall which are so relevant to our convo. I think you will like them too.
They certainly are in line with what I've been looking at lately.......
Feynman's is interesting. It is a lot like how I think about things. I try to understand though.