Salmo,

How does it feel to always refute the evidence of others but never provide evidence to support your own claims? When it comes to anything covid related, you consistently refute the evidence or claims of others and find a way to discredit them because of the source and not because of the content or evidence itself. That isn’t very scientific, Salmo.

You also never provide any evidence to support your own claims. Have you ever thought about why? I can make it easy for you… because there is no evidence to support your claims… only what people “assumed” to be true. As you have stated before, this would be considered “weak evidence” at best. If we refer to the Graham Disagreement Hierarchy, you often fall between level 1-4 and only occasionally reach level 5 and only due to addressing the argument with your own reasoning without evidence. You have never reached level 7. The reason you never reach level 7 is because you don’t have actual evidence to support your positions and claims.

When it comes to refuting the evidence of others, you remain at lower levels between level 1-4. Here is the different levels of the disagreement hierarchy.

Level 1: Name-Calling

This is the bottom of the barrel. Resorting to personal attacks or insults shuts down any possibility of productive conversation.

Level 2: Ad Hominem

This involves expressing disagreement by attacking the characteristics or authority of the person who brings in the proposition.

Level 3: Responding to Tone

Instead of addressing the actual argument, you focus on the other person's tone, further escalating the situation.

Level 4: Contradiction

Here, you simply point out that the other person is wrong, without providing any explanation or evidence to support your claim. This is a neutral argument type.

Level 5: Counter Argument

This is the first step towards a productive discussion. You directly address the other person's argument with your own reasoning and evidence. You can use Ethos/ Credibility, Pathos/ Emotion, or Logos/ Logic in building your counter argument here.

Level 6: Refutation / reframing

You demonstrate that the other person's argument contains logical flaws or inconsistencies.

Level 7: Refuting the Central Point

This is the holy grail of disagreements. You directly address the core of the other person's argument and explain why it's wrong. You might be able to align the person who brings in the proposition to your idea through this. This is largely used by world leaders.

Salmo, I challenge you to provide just a shred of research or science to support your positions related to covid. Just one study. Something that strengthens your claims. There has been multiple studies and research shared over the years that go against your positions and not a single study that supports anything you’ve claimed. You have no problem finding or posting studies or research on fisheries topics, why are you unable to regarding anything related to covid?


Streamer