@augustus @Hyolobrika 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂
And if you are saying this seriously, you are being seriously inane.
@augustus @Hyolobrika Oh dear. It seems you are serious.
Let me laugh even harder. 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣
@augustus
Not really. I've never heard an argument from them that can't be debunked relatively easily. The persistence argument also applies to anti-vaxxers, flat earthers, "5G causes cancer/COVID/etc." believers, homeopaths, and other nonsense, I'd say that the persistence of the theory despite counterargumentation is irrelevant.
@augustus
I am a mathematician. I closely analyze logical arguments for a living and am trained to critically analyze both other people's arguments and my own. No one has a monopoly on truth or a complete paucity of error. Not me, not you, not anyone else.
My original point stands: none of the arguments against a moon landing I have seen so far have held water, and the persistence of belief in a theory over time has no bearing on the truth of it.
But if you have arguments that you find convincing, feel free to present them. I would love to hear them.
@augustus
> reasons to discount evidence that were in front of your face.
So skeptical thinking is a bad thing?
Also, I'm going into industry, not academia. Not every mathematician is an academic (not that that is a remotely relevant factor.)
@augustus I should also point out that I have seen many bad arguments over the years. Heck, I've seen famous people in mathematics get called out for bad argumentation. I can call a fake/bad argument when I see one, and have.
@augustus There's a difference between critical/skeptical thinking and rejecting/accepting something on flawed grounds for rejecting/accepting.The problem with anti-vaxxers, for instance isn't that they are "offensive" or "bad", it's that they have insufficient evidence to support their claims. If there was a demonstrable link between vaccines and say, autism, it would have shown up in attempts to replicate the Wakefield paper.
@augustus And if that had happened, we would likely not be having a debate over anti-vaxxers. They would have been right.
But none of the attempts to replicate Wakefield worked. Furthermore, Wakefield was shown to have fabricated his results.
@augustus I just laughed at one belief that I thought you were serious about. I don't have a bad view of all non-mainstream narratives. (Just the ones that are demonstrably wrong, like flat earth, anti-vax, homeopathy, and COVID-denial) and I don't hate the people.
