> The fact for instance that our ability to understand the underlying reality if any may be limited doesn't mean that every proposition is equally valid.
In the colloquial sense, for sure. However, if someone bothers to engage in a discussion by providing an answer to a question, I think it is perfectly fair to say that the burden of proof lies on the answerer. If someone responds in kind, then they should provide evidence and reasoning for their claim. A holier-than-thou attitude to the point of providing one word as an answer and refusing to elaborate isn't remotely conducive to discussion.
The question of whether vaccines cause autism isn't a question that can reasonably be dismissed immediately like "the moon is made of cheese" can. You probably put your trust in the scientists who say vaccines don't cause autism. You may very well be right. But if you choose to engage in a discussion, don't act like your argument is untouchable. That's a disservice to the spirit of scientific inquiry. Perhaps there's a new study that should be considered. If it's the same old debunked studies, feel free to end the discussion there. But you don't know that ahead of time. If you're going to continue a discussion, do so in good faith.
> You entire life has been built on picking the most likely explanation for a set of inputs received. It's how your ancestors didn't get eaten by animals.
That is...confident. I think animals are a lot easier to avoid dying to than trying to understand the universe and everything about it, whether that's physics, epidemiology, or philosophy. Natural selection isn't "survival of the perfect beings" but rather "survival of the fittest and then some mediocre ones who haven't died off".
In the colloquial sense, for sure. However, if someone bothers to engage in a discussion by providing an answer to a question, I think it is perfectly fair to say that the burden of proof lies on the answerer. If someone responds in kind, then they should provide evidence and reasoning for their claim. A holier-than-thou attitude to the point of providing one word as an answer and refusing to elaborate isn't remotely conducive to discussion.
The question of whether vaccines cause autism isn't a question that can reasonably be dismissed immediately like "the moon is made of cheese" can. You probably put your trust in the scientists who say vaccines don't cause autism. You may very well be right. But if you choose to engage in a discussion, don't act like your argument is untouchable. That's a disservice to the spirit of scientific inquiry. Perhaps there's a new study that should be considered. If it's the same old debunked studies, feel free to end the discussion there. But you don't know that ahead of time. If you're going to continue a discussion, do so in good faith.
> You entire life has been built on picking the most likely explanation for a set of inputs received. It's how your ancestors didn't get eaten by animals.
That is...confident. I think animals are a lot easier to avoid dying to than trying to understand the universe and everything about it, whether that's physics, epidemiology, or philosophy. Natural selection isn't "survival of the perfect beings" but rather "survival of the fittest and then some mediocre ones who haven't died off".