Just because a scientist disagrees with the prevailing paradigm, it doesn't make him "fringe".

You are supposedly to use your faculties to figure out whether someone's stance has merit instead of just going by which group of experts is the loudest.

a consensus =/= a prevailing paradigm

loudest =/= most

sunny.

Prove that those scientists are "fringe".

doctors against vaccine/mask consensus are outside of the mainstream, and by censorship are pushed to the outer edge of the group.

now say im right.

Science is not based on "consensus". If every communist on the planet randomly decided that gravity is not real science because they said so, it doesn't make it so.

Consensus was that the earth was the center of the universe. Consensus was that the earth was flat. Consensus is meaningless.

Science has nothing to do with consensus, it has to do with the scientific method. Since you're too lazy to figure it out, here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Now, nowhere in the scientific method is there a requirement for "experts". Nowhere in the scientific method is there a requirement for "consensus".

What IS required in the scientific method is extreme skepticism. Any and all hypotheses need to be able to pass rigorous tests before ever even reaching the point of "theory".

So, how did we go from "masks work now they dont" to "naturally immunity isn't effective now it is" to "vaccines will protect you from the unvaccinated" to "being vaccinated won't prevent you from spreading the virus".

Where did your skepticism go? When did you become a shill for the most anti-science, authoritarian administration seen in the last century?

Maybe go back to the founding of the nation. Washington took all the advise from all of his advisors. HE made decisions based on that advise. And he would not take any advise from one "expert" without getting input from "experts" of other fields.

So where was the "expert" advise from craftsman, tradesmen, economists, Psychologists, Human Rights advoctes?

You know who else were "experts"? The Nazi medical science divisions who conducted arguably the worst, most inhumane medical experimentation on living people the modern world has ever seen. Is THAT what you're attempting to promote?

At this point, radical Islam is starting to look positively responsible and merciful next to the bullshit you're spouting.

They gave me 10%off the next grocery purchase for each shot. That's how they got me.

the scientific method in practice is experts coming to a consensus of available data where people tested a hypothesis. these experts conclude the data isnt tampered by untested factors, and generally repeat the tests to confirm, potentially with changes to eliminate outlier factors they didn't perceive.

you've really been on a roll this week latching onto words u dont like and ranting to cry about very basic facts. im guessing u work at a place with 100+ people, or worked rather.

Lol. Giving me a dictionary definition of the word "fringe" is NOT the same as you proving that those scientists are fringe.

I don't think you know what the word "prove" means.

a definition alone proves nothing, and explanation of how something fits said definition is exactly what u asked for however.

The scientists promoted by media outlets have conflict of interests that invalidate their arguments.

Consensus can't exist in a world like ours crippled by private interests.

Pfizer's vaccine is the most popular because they spend the most on advertising.

tl;dr Genetic fallacies are not useful on their own

This post was edited by EndlessSky on Sep 10 2021 11:45am