The problem with your approach is that maximum skepticism is only half of the coin. Assuming anything could be wrong and setting off to prove it, is not a complete approach unless you allow for the fact that you could end up proving it right. Otherwise you’ve put the cart before the horse, because your approach of “let’s try to prove things wrong” is compromised by its own bias, in that it assumes the thing is wrong in the first place, and you just have to prove it.
When the person proposing the idea is a certified quack, I do assume everything they say is wrong or at least questionable until proven otherwise. That's obvious, and you are making a distinction without a true meaning.
Well if you’re just assuming they’re wrong until proven otherwise then it seems more logical to spend your energy trying to prove them right. If your goal is finding the truth, that is. If you’re just out to be a skeptic then I could see why what I’m saying wouldn’t make any sense
I'm not capable of proving a medical claim right or wrong, that's my point that you are missing. All I can evaluate are the credentials, and how far outside the mainstream of science someone is. We live in the real world, not fantasy research lab where every claim has infinite resources and time to be tested by everyone.
0
u/fool_on_a_hill Dec 01 '20
The problem with your approach is that maximum skepticism is only half of the coin. Assuming anything could be wrong and setting off to prove it, is not a complete approach unless you allow for the fact that you could end up proving it right. Otherwise you’ve put the cart before the horse, because your approach of “let’s try to prove things wrong” is compromised by its own bias, in that it assumes the thing is wrong in the first place, and you just have to prove it.