Just an exampl of settled science - that wasn't.

So you are saying the article is wrong because settled science says so?

No petal, I was quoting science that said the settled science was wrong. You do understand; don't you petal?

"they disproved an established doctrine" aka settled science. Not my opinion - scientific opinion.

Do try to keep up.

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 15^th, 2020 at 1:59pm:


because you were the one talking about logical fallacy petal.

lee wrote on Mar 14^th, 2020 at 8:45pm:


I’m sure that we have all seen it happen at one point or another. Two people are debating about some scientific topic and the person who is opposed to the mainstream scientific view gets backed into a corner by an opponent who is wielding numerous peer-reviewed studies. So, how does he get out of it? Simple, he merely utters the words, “well scientists have been wrong in the past, so they might be wrong now,” and having spoken those irrefutable words, the debate ends, and the anti-scientist leaves, thinking himself victorious. In reality, all he did was use a logically invalid cop-out that does nothing other than demonstrate how truly weak and indefensible his position is.

The first problem with this argument is simply that it is a guilt by association fallacy (or ad hominem depending on exactly how it is used). Just because scientists have been wrong in that past does not mean that you can blindly reject all evidence and arbitrarily assume that they are wrong now. So right off the bat, the rules of logic tell us that this argument is no good.

The second problem is one of the most important. Of course scientists have been wrong in the past, because science is inherently a process of proving other scientists wrong. That’s how science works. It would be a terrible thing if scientists were never wrong because that would mean that science had come to a standstill and was no longer advancing. Here’s the important thing though, scientists are always proved wrong by other scientists! Major scientific principles aren’t overthrown by people with no scientific training sitting on their couch and speculating! New scientific discoveries are made by scientists, not bloggers, not people who have never set foot in a lab. There is no universe in which someone’s uneducated opinion is just as valid as the results of countless peer-reviewed studies.

[url]https://thelogicofscience.com/2015/01/30/but-scientists-have-been-wrong-in-the-past/[/url]

Oh dear lee. looks like you've caught yourself up in another logical fallacy

Do us a favor lee
Go to the top of a tall building and jump off - after all, the theory of gravity might be settled science that wasn't - and tell us how you went. 

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 15^th, 2020 at 2:32pm:



So you admit the article is correct but you don't accept it overturns the "established doctrine" aka settled science? Do I have that correct?

Oh dear. You just can't accept the statement at face value.

never mind petal.

Not when you use the term "settled science" when it doesn't appear anywhere in the article

You really are a spineless jellyfish

More backpedaling and obfuscation.

You are such a coward that you won't even admit why you used the term.

Hypocrite

The fire alarm sounds. Lee is sitting drinking his cocoa in a corner of the RSL.