Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Steve Kirsch's avatar

If you want to change my mind, it's simple. There has been a lot of evidence gathered over the past 100 years that viruses exist. Simply show me that the things we know about a virus are more consistent with the hypothesis A that viruses do not exist than the hypothesis B that they exist.

Or simply show that my 4 observations (golf partner, wife, me, brother) are more likely explained by A than B.

Basically show me that the preponderance of the evidence favors A.

Please explain why nobody has done that.

Or even easier, tell me if I am asked if there is a needle in a haystack and I do 1,000 measurement all consistent with a needle being in the haystack, but I cannot actually find the needle, is there a needle? Or does it not exist because I cannot physically find (aka isolate) it?

Expand full comment
Chris Paul's avatar

Steve,

Your response to the "null hypothesis argument" fails on numerous levels, often for the same reason your prior arguments failed.

You once again create a strawman (no pun intended) and even then, you don't stick the landing.

If you x-rayed a haystack and can detect a piece of metal that may be a needle, to prove it's a needle you would need to extract the needle, so already, the unnecessary analogy fails.

It is not "faulty logic" to assume that if you have not proven the presence of a needle, you should accept that you have not proven the presence of a needle. That is tautologically true and you're pretending that we should accept the presence of the needle because something needle-ish is present in the haystack following x-ray/magnetic study.

Likewise, your judgment that 'it is probable a needle exists from various viewpoints' is not scientific proof of a needle. You admit that. The hypothesis, as you say, is that a needle is in the haystack, but the fact you have not proven the existence of the needle remains, so the null hypothesis - "it is not proven that a needle exists" - must be accepted.

But the larger point is even worse for your analogy.

For the virus to be proven to exist this way, you would have to come to the haystack not knowing what the x-ray and magnetic field study are showing, propose 'something that is a needle', and then circle back to what you have done as proof of the needle's existence. Virologists did not know a virus/virion existed before "finding it", right?

If they were looking for the needle in the haystack, they are already looking for a needle, which explains why your judgment is "probable needle". The abstract form of "needle" cannot be gleaned from what was observed in the magnetic study or the x-ray, because needle is undefined before the test. All you have is "things like this that have been observed this way shall be called needles". The point of argument is that this is what virology has done. This is sleight of hand.

If you don't know what it is you're detecting, detecting it consistently under similar circumstances doesn't indicate the identity of what you're detecting. There are other needle-like things it could be. Your tests could be faulty. Even if we accept those as low-probability outcomes, and what you found likely is a needle, you still have not proven the presence of the needle. The needle can be isolated and examined on its own. There are ways to identify a needle, and your examination merely suggests a needle rather than proves a needle. And needles are not identified as "something in haystacks". The needle exists outside of the self-consistent study of needleinhaystack-ology.

Needles should not be identified in such superficial ways, and of course they are not. Viruses should not be either. That's the point. But it's even worse, because the argument is that the needle can ONLY be detected through these superficial means, according to the rules of needleinhaystack-ology.

It's a wholly nonsensical analogy. If the presence of a virus can only be proven within the rules of virology which already accepts the existence of the virus as 'proven', you find self-consistency and literally nothing else. Simply, it's absurd.

In doing this, you are violating the principles of the scientific method to advance your position, which is exactly the problem with virology Patrick is highlighting.

Again, I'm not sold that Patrick is right, because as you admit, you are not the ideal person to be making this argument. Anyone who has studied logic and argumentation knows who won, and it wasn't close. You should move to a position of skepticism/agnosticism/doubt. That is the only intellectually honest position. If you want to reinforce your position, simply find a virologist to debate Patrick and prove the existence of viruses. Maybe I'm wrong and many will happily make their case. They all should.

I imagine they'll say, "I cannot even subject myself to an argument so silly," which is a version of what you did. You thought you had a slam dunk ready for any dummy who challenged you, so you actually had the conversation. The opposite happened. This was not a close debate, it was a blowout.

Expand full comment
410 more comments...

No posts