1649 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
SD's avatar

Anyone claiming viruses do not exist should be the one's proving their case. Not the other way round. By demanding Steve prove them wrong when they have not provided any tangible evidence to support their claims is guilty of what I call 'Sciencism' which is not about science but who can yell and wail the loudest and link to the most youtube video's and wikipedia trash. Sciencism is what those muppets who forced the vaccines on everyone practice, it aint science.

Expand full comment
Rob's avatar

Proving something does not exist is not a valid scientific method. The burden is on the ones who aim to prove it does exist. They have failed to do that. A virus is inferred, but has never been seen.

Expand full comment
kordelas's avatar

You lost your argument, kiddo.

"Burden of Proof

Informal

This fallacy originates from the Latin phrase "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat"). The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions) the claim. The fallacy of the Burden of Proof occurs when someone who is making a claim, puts the burden of proof on another party to disprove what they are claiming."

Do not bother me with your scientism cult nonsense. I am only interested in demonstrable and verifiable reality.

Expand full comment