You have to know how to separate things. Between the fundamentalist zetetician who believes his reasoning rationally unstoppable because, for example, he takes a certain context for granted when there is no consensus on it,
Until then it is acceptable, well almost because who determines the type of consensus in question? According to what criteria? According to which recognized skills? and why should a Zetetician be only a fundamentalist, but a non-Zetician an obscurantist? according to what justifiable criteria, other than being yourself obscurantist. This is indeed a cult speech!
So as I pictured it by the comparison between aviation and marine: although the engineers who design these products may have the same basic training, those who design the airplanes have no marine skills, but they can reach consensus. BETWEEN THEM on THEIR products, but their products ONLY which makes sense, the same for the sailors. And you don't have to be very smart to understand it! clearly, the consensus of some has no value as consensus for others
and the worst obscurantist who asserts all the time the uselessness of vaccines or the cure of cancer by carrot juice, on the basis that since we do not know everything, everything is possible, there are all degrees of position.
This is only a position precisely typical of what is reproached to the Zetetic sect: the profound ignorance of the subjects who oppose their beliefs and which they caricature counting on ridiculing to give themselves credit, between them!
So to straighten out what you are constantly twisting. The discourse of the defenders of freedom of choice and of conscience are not anti-vaccines as your zetetic literature likes to claim. There is no question of saying that vaccines are useless (it is a matter of personal conscience like preferring carrots to leeks when others make the opposite choices.) Since we cannot say, a priori, that such and such a product will have some use or be useless, but this can be demonstrated with hindsight for a sufficiently long time with official statistics, they
So another trial of intention of the zetetic sect of which you resume, without verification according to their habit, their speech (according to the few articles of their site on these particular subjects) and of which I have already analyzed the presuppositions and a priori
Then;Cure cancer with carrot juice
? Where did you go to sin that kind of guess; forgiveness of disinformation: source therefore!
it seems therefore that your degrees are summed up in one; position yourself flush with the daisies!
Zetetics is only the application of reason to the analysis of facts, there are methods to think correctly but you have to know their limits, and the imagination of an obscurantist can also be useful, if it is able to accept that observations and facts take precedence.
So you recognize, on your criteria above, that zetetics also tends towards obscurantism: Astonishing!
janic wrote: SAM the zetetist tried to trick Klein
I also think janic is making a movie.
No Janic only watched the video in question, HIM! So find out in the videos of the character in question what you should have already seen
Damn if only the anti-zetetic watch his videos where is the world going?
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré