Banned from skeptiko.

[Laird]

Edit: I now realise that this discussion is itself in the contentious part of the forum!

No, it's not: the Other Topics forum itself is public; only the forums within it are opt-in (and "contentious").

According to our guidelines How to navigate creating threads about science and scientific controversies on PQ, it would belong either in the Other Topics forum or in the opt-in Non-Psi-Related Scientific Controversies forum (see How to join the hidden politics, conspiracy theory & controversial science subforums). My sense is that it best belongs in the latter, but I'd be open (contingent on the views of others, especially other admins) to you starting it in Other Topics and only moving it if it veers into contentious sociopolitical territory.

It will. It is a well known right-wing conspiracy theory and it is downright dangerous! Let those that dabble do so privately and the rest of us can view the results later in the Darwin Awards.

It will. It is a well known right-wing conspiracy theory and it is downright dangerous! Let those that dabble do so privately and the rest of us can view the results later in the Darwin Awards.

I would also hate to see that particular audience shift from Skeptiko to here. I remember debating with a few flat earthers towards the end before I finally left it for good.

... and the rest of us can view the results later in the Darwin Awards.

This made me laugh, thanks.     

A favorite writer for me.

https://henrycorbinproject.blogspot.com/...arabi.html

Thanks for the blog recommendation. 

I sometimes wonder why Corbin has not been adopted more widely amongst contemporary fans of the traditional and perennialist schools. Perhaps his Protestantism? Or maybe his tone lacks the requisite degree of haughty condescension? ¯\_ (ツ)_/¯

Thanks again.

I'll just say this, and this comes from someone who may have 'fought' more with the conspiracists at Skeptiko than anyone:  Michaels's questions on the virus topic did not strike me as conspiratorial or crackpot.  I won't pretend to have been able (or interested enough) to have travelled down that rabbit hole but he presented his perspective more in the form of a question than as an assertation.

This, more than anything, separated him from the others who were declaring, emphatically, many contra-mainstream views as fact; full stop.

I enjoy people who ask questions.  I do not value those that only make authoritative, declarative statements.

I'll just say this, and this comes from someone who may have 'fought' more with the conspiracists at Skeptiko than anyone:  Michaels's questions on the virus topic did not strike me as conspiratorial or crackpot.  I won't pretend to have been able (or interested enough) to have travelled down that rabbit hole but he presented his perspective more in the form of a question than as an assertation.

This, more than anything, separated him from the others who were declaring, emphatically, many contra-mainstream views as fact; full stop.

I enjoy people who ask questions.  I do not value those that only make authoritative, declarative statements.

I have felt for many years that science in general has become vulnerable to scenarios where one big mistake is made, and then future observations and theories are interpreted in terms of that mistake, generating a spreading tree of false results. The big problem is that if enough people have used a theory X to construct their own theories, or to interpret their experimental results, it is almost impossible to correct the error and deny X.

I think this is the importance of the no-virus idea. At first it seems nonsense, because plenty of people are claiming they have detected this or that virus all the time. The problem is that imaging a tiny particle in an electron micrograph isn't the same as extracting that particle and using it to infect whatever it infects - for one thing, whatever is viewed that way is going to be dead - killed by the chemicals used to prepare the slide and the high energy electrons used to create the image.

To confound matters further, cells are now known to release particles known as exosomes (particularly under stress), which look remarkably similar to the particles claimed to be viruses!

The way people express their doubts - as questions or as assertions - may not be terribly important IMHO, so long as they engage in debate.

Obviously this is not connected with psi - or is it? I think scientists committed to a materialist view of the world without anything like enough thought, and this is now driving science to resist anything 'woo', and thus to maintain a distorted view of reality.

David