Replies

Your remark about science building in past work was an attempt to redefine science as consensus.

Mhm. I expect science to be consistent, the quality you try to disparage as "consensus." If there is no consensus on scientific topics that have been exhaustively researched, there is a problem.

The scientific consensus is that DNA carries the "blueprint" of the organism. The scientific consensus is that the Black Death was caused by Yersinia pestis. The scientific consensus is that the sun is a giant ball of primarily hydrogen undergoing nuclear fusion reactions and emitting light and heat. The scientific consensus is that fish gills enable fish to breathe under water. Etc. Etc. I can go on with scientific consensuses all day. The fact that scientists typically all agree with each other on scientific topics and facts does not discredit science. On the contrary, it reinforces the reliability and robustness of the scientific method.

You know what is not consistent and where there is no consensus? Antivax pseudoscience. Those kooks literally say anything.

This is a great interview of Dr Maholtra. Famous cardiologist and medical expert from the UK. He is smart, professional, and medically scientific in this discussion. Highly recommended: https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=+interviews+Dr+with+Dr+Maholtra&mid=8150453CE0D1E1DD17CF8150453CE0D1E1DD17CF&FORM=VIRE

Now do the six foot separation rule, which was recently admitted to have been made up.

Or Lord Pfauci’s about face on masks. Remember, he literally said,”I am the science!”

Or the change in the very definition of vaccines, to allow the clot shots to be called that, to fool the masses.

Or the insistence that the materials from the clot shots remain localized at the injection site.

Or the consensus that for purposes of tracking things, people receiving the jabs were to be called unvaccinated until two weeks later.

Part of “you are the easiest person to fool” is knowing to keep your thumb off of the scale. (Only butchers do that.)

Incidentally, you never addressed why the consensus was to make the jabs mandatory, and even push them on children, when the death rates were greatly skewed to the elderly with multiple comorbidities.

What has happened — as I pointed out earlier — is that the institutions have been hijacked to make money.

If not worse.

Science is not a moral disinfectant against greed, or eugenics, ot totalitarianism.

You keep on missing the problem if false consensus for immoral ends. Remember Lysenkoism? Hint: follow the ~~science~~ money and career advancement (or destruction).

Hint 2: As Vox Day pointed out,

SJWs always *lie*

SJWs always *project*

SJWs always *double down*

Why the immediate cancel culture towards anyone who questions the narrative?

The fact that scientists typically all agree with each other on scientific topics and facts does not discredit science. On the contrary, it reinforces the reliability and robustness of the scientific method.

Now you're mixing the "No True Scotsman" Fallacy with the Fallacy of Composition.

As well as lying through your teeth about the unanimity of science.

It's just the doctors and MDs who spoke up in opposition to the clot shots had their careers destroyed.

And how do we know they were wrong? CONSENSUS!!!

Circular reasoning, see also reasoning, circular.

Incidentally, this is aided by the censorship of by Goolag and others as people are deplatformed, demonetized, and links "disappeared". Remember George Winston and the constant revisionsI mentioned earlier.

Dingbat.