> Just because we have quantum mechanics doesn't mean we can't make true statements about the world using Newtonian mechanics.
True statements? A scientist would acknowledge them as adequate approximations, not true statements.
And by the way, let's see you build GPS (relativity) or computers (QM by way of semiconductor physics) using Newtonian mechanics.
> More importantly, they were positive statements about the world. You're comparing them to the demand for evidence that vaccinations are harmful, to which the best rebuttal is a counter-demand to prove a negative (that they're not harmful).
That's precisely the point. Science doesn't need self-appointed police squashing silly ideas like anti-vax precisely because science makes "positive statements about the world." Repeatable results speak for themselves.
[EDIT] To clarify further, allowing squashing of ideas because they don't agree with current scientific consensus will just make Planck's lament all the worse. ("A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.")
> What else you got?
After that last line, a slightly lower opinion of your ability to debate in a civil fashion.
Your first sentence nitpicks the word "truth" and ignores the spirit of the point. Your second ignores my point about the validity of Newtonian mechanics and, in the process, detracts from your own point about approximations instead of absolutes. It's also wrong for what it's worth - again, NASA used computers to get us on the Moon. Computers need not be digital.
I don't really care what your opinion is of my ability to debate in a civil fashion. That you are incorrect is not an opportunity for me to persuade you; your arguments are simply a vehicle for convincing the onlookers reading the back-and-forth. And to be blunt, when you're resorting to nitpicking words, ignoring points and comparing Newtonian mechanics to anti-vaccination, I also don't really care about abandoning civility.
And if I'm being honest I do get a certain satisfaction from challenging your examples in such a cavalier fashion, because they're frankly silly and incomparable. Considering the stakes (compromising herd immunity, implicitly defending harmful ignorance) I am all-in on censorship and abandoning decorum.
But you're free not to debate with me if you consider me gauche or impolite, just as Amazon is free to censor all the videos on its own platform.
True statements? A scientist would acknowledge them as adequate approximations, not true statements.
And by the way, let's see you build GPS (relativity) or computers (QM by way of semiconductor physics) using Newtonian mechanics.
> More importantly, they were positive statements about the world. You're comparing them to the demand for evidence that vaccinations are harmful, to which the best rebuttal is a counter-demand to prove a negative (that they're not harmful).
That's precisely the point. Science doesn't need self-appointed police squashing silly ideas like anti-vax precisely because science makes "positive statements about the world." Repeatable results speak for themselves.
[EDIT] To clarify further, allowing squashing of ideas because they don't agree with current scientific consensus will just make Planck's lament all the worse. ("A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.")
> What else you got?
After that last line, a slightly lower opinion of your ability to debate in a civil fashion.