[geofft]

That is generally how arguments about claims of fact work, yes. If you genuinely believe that, say, the earth is round, then your position isn't going to be that the earth is probably round but there are valid reasons to believe otherwise, or that you can have the opinion that the earth is flat, or whatever. It's fundamentally not a matter of opinion, and part of your belief is that it isn't a matter of opinion.

[TrevorJ]

What you are describing is explicitly not science. It's dogma.

[mwint]

I find this specific example a bit amusing. Remember when authority thought the earth was at the center of the solar system, and that was a fact and there wasn’t room for dissent?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

> Heliocentric books were banned and Galileo was ordered to abstain from holding, teaching or defending heliocentric ideas.

Sounds familiar.

I don’t say that vaccines are bad, or unhealthy. I do say that banning one side of the conversation, even if they’re crazy, is a great way to end up on the wrong side of history.

[giantrobot]

> Remember when authority thought the earth was at the center of the solar system

Authority? Oh, you mean a church who espoused having a divine mandate and a monopoly on truth and therefore the only path to a good afterlife? The Catholic Church's fortunates were literally derived from common people and nobles giving them money and resources.

The Church's persecution of Galileo was about maintaining its monopoly position, it didn't actually concern itself with truthfulness. Maybe at some levels there were the extremely pious that actually believed Galileo was professing literal heresy but the actions of the Church were entirely about defense of their monopoly position.

But yes, other than all the details of the situation, anti-vaxxers, 9/11 truthers, COVID deniers, and all the other Dunning-Kruger conspiracy theorists are just like Galileo using detailed and falsifiable experiments to bolster their claims. They're being persecuted for their science and unflinching devotion fo truth!

[geofft]

That's my point exactly. Do you think Galileo thought there was room for dissent about whether the earth moved? Did he famously say "Eppur si muove, forse"?

There's no room for dissent. There's room for argument, and by all means we should argue about it and not ban one side of the conversation. But only one of the sides can be right.

[hermitdev]

What do you think argument is, but dissent? Science doesn't progress if there isn't dissent. If there is no dissent from the status quo, there's no reason to do any research.

Galileo also thought the orbits of the planets were circular, but he was wrong about that. It doesn't matter what he thought or said at the time. Newton's laws of motions worked well... until they didn't and Einstein gave us something better. We also don't think Einstein is 100% correct, either, because relativity breaks down in some important corner cases. But it's the best explanation we have at the time.

Science is fundamentally built upon the principle of falsifiability. Without falsifiability all you have is belief and dogma. It's also why there's a fundamental difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law.

Your "argument" that we should all just shut up and walk the line is, ironically, the true anti-science position.