re: #8 Charles Johnson

[Embedded content]

this is why i do not engage crackpots

From that post and apropos:

I don’t have to have an epistemological argument about the nature of science and reality every time a crackpot comes along who doesn’t like some scientific fact or conclusion. Or wants to put one forth that they can’t conclusively, let alone even remotely, prove - other than by rhetorical twaddle.

Anti vaxers are afraid of something that’s not in vaccines. You don’t sit down and calmly, rationally “discuss” and explain this to someone, or the world, that they’re afraid of something that has never existed in reality. You say clearly and loudly “that’s crackpot fantasy (dangerous) thinking ” and move on.

Since they can’t make their point through counter scientific/math analysis, they attempt to tear down the mechanism that drew the conclusion.

Are they doctors?
Published researchers with advanced degrees?
No.
Let them learn the language, science, math.
Then do the science and math with the language.
Let them prove they deserve, yes earned the right to participate in the discussion.