Asymmetric burden of proof

Be the 1st to vote.

Steve has to PROVE virus cause disease and illness and are contagious – the opposing side does not have to prove anything.

There’s more of course, but this is worth addressing. The argument seems to be that a thesis can only be debunked if a stronger and more credible one can take it’s place. That not how things work. Consider these examples:

Source: Some Thoughts On The Virus/No-Virus Challenges Going On – Canuck Law

No tags for this post.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

wp-puzzle.com logo

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

3 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Lynn Wright
Lynn Wright
5 days ago

I always point out I cannot prove “no virus”, a particle might be hiding under a rock in the Gobi Desert and no one has looked there yet. I simply say I have not seen reasonable proof of their existence. EMs of fuzzy blobs are NOT proof. What has to be done is “prove virus” which of course has never been done using honest, replicable science (the method! Independent and dependent variables) and employing negative controls, not the shenanigans and pseudoscience of virology.

xileffilex
xileffilex
6 days ago

Wow, Steve is a full-on virus hugger if you read the links to his own recent outpourings triggered by the Baileys. Steve [team Steve?] never once mentions “control experiments” which always, somehow, get forgotten in the methods of “virologists”. Steve now quotes a Nature [published 7 May 2020, [lol!] paper [Received Feb 2 2020!!!!], Chinese of course, which in his opinion shows that SarsCov2 infection satisfies Koch’s postulates .stevekirsch.substack.com/p/if-… Here’s what’s in the paper says – it’s the same circular reasoning the Baileys always point to…. “isolates”. Poor show, Steve.  Here we show that, after the experimental infection of hACE2… Read more »

YouCanCallMeAl
YouCanCallMeAl
6 days ago

Yes, great exposition of the flaws in Steve Kirsch’s position. In fact, the same poor argumentation principles apply everywhere – in science, history, politics.. disingenuous arguments everywhere!