Can a non sequitur be between premises rather than the conclusion?

Watched this video today of Dr Michael Yeadon talking at a rally in London.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/nsVKb78KxLBP/

Yeadon, who previously served as the chief scientist and vice-president of the allergy and respiratory research division of Pfizer, and is the co-founder and former CEO of the biotechnology company Ziarco, has gone rogue.

I quote:

"I as a scientist have never used the expression, "the science". I've never heard a single scientist in my life use the expression, "the science" so when a personality tells you, "Follow the science," they're lying. That's not how it works. Science works by questioning, you question everything so I'm much more worried about answers that can't be questioned and questions that can't be asked. That's the problem."

He's described in Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Yeadon

"Michael Yeadon is a British anti-vaccine activist[1][2][3] and retired pharmacologist who attracted media attention in 2020 and 2021 for making false or unfounded claims about the COVID-19 pandemic and the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.[4][2] The Times has described him as "a hero of Covid conspiracy theorists"[5] and "a key figure in the antivax movement".

He refers to Dr Denis Rancourt and his work on all cause mortality. I link to a paper below.
https://www.sott.net/article/436710-Study-of-All-cause-Mortality-During-Covid-19-No-Plague-But-Likely-Mass-Homicide-by-Government-Response

I think is what is meant by, "follow the science", or "the science" is the total meta analysis of all the peer reviewed papers on a specific topic. Bc all the peer reviewed papers follow the scientific method, and so whatever the overall consensus/ meta analysis is of all the studies together is probably the most scientifically accurate that we have available at the time. 

I think that anti vaxxers have a stake in you not accepting the science, not accepting the meta analysis of peer review consensus and just listening to them instead which is an argument from authority fallacy. 

I will just add/stress that because there is (some) subjectivity, this doesn't mean everything is equal. Taste is subjective. This doesn't mean chocolate and dog crap are equally as delicious.

Petra's comment above seems like he might be a bot or something like that pushing disinformation on your site. 

[To Jason Mathias ]

Petra is not a bot, but I wouldn't be surprised if she is paid to push disinformation and sow discord on American/West forums. The problem is (for her), this is a learning site and the nonsense she writes is excellent fodder for learning and conversation. We should be paying her :)

I find it hilarious that despite the fact I have a clearly female name people assume I'm a man.

I also find it hilarious that people would think I'm a bot.

My apologies. Corrected the gender in my last post. Chalk this one up to American ignorance with non-American names.

It's fine, I just think it's funny how so often people assume I'm a man, I don't think it's just lack of familiarity with my name.

Statistically, on this forum, about 90% of participants are male (or have clearly male names/photos). I think we all are just playing the odds.

I've never known Petra to be anything but a woman's name....just saying cuz I'm from USA.

[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

Help me out here. Is me claiming that Bitchute and SOTT (sign of the times) sources are disinformation sources the genetic fallacy like Petra is claiming. I provided evidence of it by sharing MediaBiasFactCheck rating of those sources and the report showed they are disinformation sources. I showed her it has a methodology page and everything. I even went on Petra's sources, listed some examples of disinformation on them like the claim that space doesn't exist and climate change being a gov conspiracy to kill everyone. I even shared a FactCheck.org fact check debunking one of the claims made in Petras source that Covid wasn't a pandemic but that the gov killed everyone. I mentioned that her sources data charts were just hand drawn with a pencil by the person making the claims instead of an actual source listed. It seems like to me that this is just common sense stuff. Of course space exists and covid was a pandemic etc. I don't know what else to say other than this blows my mind. Look at the high level of confidence in Petras response in these sources and information and claiming my responses are fallacious etc. 

Of course, you are correct here, but my jumping in won't do a thing to change Petra's views. For the same reason flat earthers remain flat earthers. To the conspiracy theorist, evidence against their claim is simply part of the conspiracy. Citing scientific consensus, and virtually every major medical establishment in the world, in the mind of the conspiracy theorist, only "proves" to them that you have been "duped," and they are the ones with the "truth" (thanks to evidence found on TikTok by random people). You are not a virologist, and I am sure Petra isn't either, so debating the specific evidence in this case would be nothing but a demonstration of appeal to authorities. This is precisely why the scientific method is so important AND the practice of scientific consensus—so regular people like us can be well-informed without having to be experts in every field. I have not been following this thread, so I don't know if you have demonstrated that the sources Petra has referenced have not used the scientific method properly, but that would be a good start.

I demonstrated that the sources Petra has referenced are disinformation sources by using MediaBiasFactCheck as a source, and FactCheck. org and a source. But then she says it doesn't count bc I am using other people's arguments debunkings and not my own. But this seems like an impossible standard placed upon me, bc how can I refute her sources without using sources of my own? A soursless debunking is just a baseless opinion. So if I do a baseless opinion then I'm sure she will then say I have brought no evidence. So it's a catch 22, I am damned if I do, damned if I don't. These just seem like defense mechanisms to cling to one's own beliefs in the face of contradicting evidence to avoid cognitive dissonance. 

This is what Michael Crichton, who received his MD from Harvard Medical School before becoming a writer, says about scientific consensus, Bo. I'd be interested on your thoughts on it.

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”
― Michael Crichton

I think he should stick to writing fictional books. A "consensus," despite what the anti-science crowd believes, is simply a general agreement on an issue; it is not a compromise. If 10 out of 10 mathematicians agree that 1+1=2, this is a consensus. They are not "pawns," "shills," or "mindless robots," taking the easy way out to keep their funding/jobs; they happen to agree on what is true. I don't want to hear about the times the consensus turned out to be wrong. This is science. An imperfect practice, but without question, the best we have. By they way, he is committing a clear galileo fallacy here - literally. I will also add that when great scientists who broke with the consensus, they presented demonstrable evidence that created a paradigm shift that no reasonable scientist could doubt, and the consensus quickly changed. The difference between conspiracy theorists and "the greatest scientists in history" is facts and evidence. If the anti-vaxx community produces anything close to facts and evidence similar to those great scientists in history referenced, and convince their peers (those who have actual expertise in the relative fields, not keyboard warriors), the consensus will swiftly change. Until that happens, being a non-expert in all of the relative fields, the only reasonable position is to follow the consensus of the experts - especially when its virtually unanimous.

[To Petra Liverani]

This same distorted strawman statement is pushed by all the anti science crowd, even Alex Jones. Scientific consensus is not a consensus of scientists opinions like they the anti science crowd claims. They make it sound like all the scientists come together to vote and thats not what scientific consensus is so its a strawman fallacy.

It's the consensus of all the peer reviewed papers as a whole, i.e a meta analysis of all the worlds research. We can think of the peer reviewed research papers as results of experiments. And results are not opinions, results are just whatever the results are, they are stap out just like 4 is spat out as the result of 2+2, so no it's not opinionated and it's not like politics. They are strawmanning you about what scientific consensus actually means. 

And keep in mind that all of the researchers that make up the totality of the body of work don't know all the other researchers who also make up the body of work, so their work is not a coordinated conspiracy. Its rather blind, and so if a majority of the results agree, then it's likely to be the case. 

[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

"You are not a virologist, and I am sure Petra isn't either, so debating the specific evidence in this case would be nothing but a demonstration of appeal to authorities."

No, I'm not a virologist but it is a fallacy that all the truth about a pandemic is only really available to experts that must be relied on. Truth tends to signal itself in every "pore" of something as it were, especially something as monster-size as a global pandemic - there will be signals here, there and everywhere and all these signals will paint a picture. If the pandemic is real the picture will be very different from a fake one.

In the article, The Great Lie and the Data That Shows It, by Michael Wallach, anyone with half a brain can evaluate the data laid out much of which is non-controversial and is simply statistics from mainstream sources and what these statistics show is not contagion. Rises in all-cause mortality do not align with a contagious illness but rather with protocols. The alignment of mortality in the UK with the massive increase in dosage of the opiate, Midazolam, is really quite something to behold.

I invite you to drop your labels, Bo, open your mind and take a look. I find your use of derogatory labels rather strange coming from someone concerned with logic and objectivity. I don't refer to you as a sheeple or an apologist for the mainstream narrative. Please don't refer to me as a conspiracy theorist as I reject that label most strenuously.

No, I'm not a virologist but it is a fallacy that all the truth about a pandemic is only really available to experts that must be relied on. 

So let me steelman your claim here: It is possible that someone with little to expertise in pandemic-related issues knows the truth about the pandemic, and the people with the expertise in related areas are all wrong. I agree, so what? Does that mean we should take seriously people who make claims, without evidence, on topics they have no expertise in? No, and that is my point. You are a keyboard warrior, parroting information from the darkest corners of the Internet that have been repeatedly debunked by people who are experts in those fields. We have been down this road before and for every "article" you reference, we debunk with actual evidence.

I invite you to drop your labels,

I invite you to stop being the perfect example of the label then. If you can't see this, I know that I am not dealing with a rational actor, and I am sorry for you. We are done here, please don't respond to this.

"MediaBiasFactCheck rating" a true authority?...just asking

It's not an authority, it's a tool. It's a tool that you can use to see what way a news source biases lean and how accurate their content is. The accuracy of their content is determined by how many fact checks it failed by all the other fact checkers combined together. It determines the bias level by how much biased language they use in their content and what their story selection favors. This isn't rocket science, it's pretty straight forward.

Jason, Please identify the disinformation you're referring to.

You're promoting anti vaccine conspiracy theorists from Bitchute which is a well known disinformation propaganda site. 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bitchute/ 

"Overall, we rate BitChute extreme right and Questionable based on the promotion of conspiracy theories, propaganda, hate speech, poor sourcing, fake news, and a lack of transparency. This source is not credible for accurate information and may be offensive to some (most).
 
Detailed Report
Reasoning: Poor Sourcing, Conspiracy, Propaganda, Lack of Transparency, Fake News, Hate Speech
Bias Rating: EXTREME RIGHT
Factual Reporting: VERY LOW
Country: United Kingdom
Press Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY"

You cite "https://mediabiasfactcheck." as a source....BWHAHAHAHAHA.....now that's funny 

Thanks for the logically fallacious response. 

[To Petra Liverani]

And I thought you might be a bot because your post had nothing to do with my question or my post. It looked like spam or soliciting disinformation sources about a totally different topic than what was being discussed here. 

"... your post had nothing to do with my question or my post."

I feel it is quite pertinent. I quoted a scientist on what he thinks science is ... and what he thinks it isn't. Science is an attitude not just a matter of subjectivity/objectivity it is an attitude. Science is having an open, inquiring mind. It is not reaching for authority opinion and slamming what isn't sanctioned by authority as "disinformation" - Appeal to Authority fallacy.

"I think is what is meant by, "follow the science", or "the science" is the total meta analysis of all the peer reviewed papers on a specific topic. Bc all the peer reviewed papers follow the scientific method, and so whatever the overall consensus/ meta analysis is of all the studies together is probably the most scientifically accurate that we have available at the time."

But what Michael Yeadon, scientist, says is that scientists don't think in terms of "the science". They don't speak of science that way, they don't think of science that way and they don't think in terms such as "disinformation". 

Seriously, Jason. Seriously. You put forward what is said about Bitchute as a platform as an argument?

When I ask you what you're referring to as disinformation I want the information you're referring to not nonsense said about a platform. What actual information are you referring to? Drop the labels "anti-vax", "disinformation", etc and get down to the actual content. Labelling is anti-thought, please drop the labels.

Ironically you're the one who is using the argument from authority fallacy by cherry picking a single scientists quote/opinion and using his credentials as evidence that what his opinion is must be true, which actually is the argument from authority fallacy. A consensus meta analysis of all peer review is not an argument from authority fallacy. Bc all peer review papers is not appealing to an authority. 

So far, everything I have seen on Bitchute over the years, and every anti vaxx claim I have seen over the years have all been disinformation. So, why waste my time and look at yours. Probability says its also disinformation. I see in the headline that its claiming that "Covid-19 wasn't actually a pandemic, but rather mass homicide by government." That's quite a claim, and just following occam's razor alone enough to know this claim is pretty far fetched and is meant to appeal to paranoid conspiracy theory anti gov radicals. 

[To Petra Liverani]

Media bias fact check isn't nonsense. It has a methodology page so you can see their methodology, they have a transparency page, an about page unlike disinformation sources. It's all there and it's pretty fair. They fact check everything, left, right, middle it doesn't matter bc its done with the same unbiased  methodology across the board. And when I cross reference it, it's always quite accurate according to my own research as well. 

You could have just mentioned his quote about his opinion on what he thinks science is and left out all the anti vaxx covid anti gov stuff. Bc what we are discussing here has nothing to do with vaccines, or covid, or government. Which is why I thought you might be a bot soliciting disinformation. 

Really, all you have to do is just type in the claims being made and then the words fact check after. Here, I did one for you, it debunks your source's clams. www.factcheck.org/2020/12. . .


And your source's charts and data are just hand pencil drawings that he drew and are not from any listed source. 

[To Petra Liverani]

When you go to SOTT home page, there is no about page on it, and no about page on Bitchute either. Thats a big red flag of disinformation sites. The home page is also full of anti science rhetoric and even sells shirts that say, "you are the carbon they want to reduce." Appealing to the NWO depopulation conspiracy theory and rejecting all of climate science as some kind of deep state conspiracy to kill you. There is even a video on the Bitchute home page that suggests space doesn't even exist, and a ton of anti trans rhetoric. These sources are so silly that they make the fake news magazines that use to be on the shelves at the check out of grocery stores look saine.

What you need to do is address the content, not look at what is said about the content and judge by other content but look at the content itself. The reason we cannot rely solely on the mainstream media for our information is that it is heavily censored. Have you not noticed that? Do you think that all scientific voices are getting a hearing? They are not, you need to widen your scope of investigation.

This is a more digestible article (and extends to a greater data set) by Michael Wallach published on the platform, Substack, on the mortality figures and their cause in the first half of 2020. What are we told about Substack, Jason? Please, do tell. I just saw that Richard Dawkins is published on Substack too. How 'bout that? And he's on Bitchute too. It's not the platform, it's the content.

The Great Lie And The Data That Shows It

I already know it's false, i've debunked 1000s of anti vaxxers in my life and I'm done, it takes too much of my time for nothing. Bc everytime one of you asks me to do what you are asking me to do now I end up spending days debunking all the 100s of claims made in just one video and I list all the evidence and claim by claim and discovered that all their claims are false and yet they are never satisfied that I did what they asked of me, they are not convinced and just end up sending me more disinformation to debunk until I give up due to fatigue. 

You assuming that I think Richard Dawkins is a credible source just tells me that you are also probably a young earth creationist evolution denier as well and if you buy into that as well then I don't know how to help you. 

And your other source, SOTT is also rates as a pseudoscience disinformation site. 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/signs-of-the-times-sott/ 

"Overall, we rate Signs of the Times (SOTT) Right Biased and a strong Conspiracy and Pseudoscience website based on the promotion of false, unproven, or misleading information that cannot be verified or has been debunked.
 
Detailed Report
Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180"

Oh dear, Jason. Oh dear.

The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue) is a fallacy of irrelevance in which arguments or information are dismissed or validated based solely on their source of origin rather than their content.

It's content, not source. Content. You need to think for yourself. Please identify the information you think is disinformation.

[To Petra Liverani]

Your sources content is wrong, therefor your source is not a good source. Space exists (you can get your own telescope and take pics of the ISS, galaxies, nebulas etc), the earth is spherical, climate science is legit science, so is evolutionary biology and virology etc. Your sources deny all the established mainstream science as all being a NWO communist conspiracy theory which doesn't even make any sense. Your fallacious reasoning as to why your sources are true is bc they are censored. That's not logical. It's all just religious populist anti gov anti mainstream conspiracy nonsense. Im sorry, but you've been duped. I hope you dig yourself out of the rabbit hole one day like I did. Yes, I too was once into all this far right conspiracy nonsense too until I learned logic and critical thinking skills. 

I can see this is going nowhere. I have no further comment to you, Jason.

I'm afraid I was little confused by how you exclude information from your purview and on reflection I think perhaps it might be good to tease out a few definitions.

We can see three main phenomena in operation when we receive information:

1. Source (where the information comes from originally)
2. Medium (the means by which we get the information - which to a degree can be considered a second-level source, see Marshall McLuhan's famous book - not that I've read it - The Medium is the Message)
3. Content (what the information is)

The reason we can regard the medium as a second-level source is that the medium can distort the message from the original source - it can edit the source material in such a way to make it give a different message from that intended and so on. Also, certain media favour certain information and exclude other information which, of course, creates a kind of message as indicated by McLuhan's book.

The source of the information I linked to was not Bitchute (it's the medium), but Dr Michael Yeadon himself. On Bitchute (and other media) we can see film of him speaking at a rally.

While Bitchute might publish lots of "right-wing conspiracy theories", it's essentially a public platform where anyone can upload anything - as long as it meets certain criteria. Obviously, we see Richard Dawkins on Bitchute and he's not a "right-wing conspiracy theorist", is he? So it doesn't JUST show "right-wing conspiracy theories" and what it does show is Dr Michael Yeadon speaking at a rally. He's our source.

What do we know about Dr Michael Yeadon?
--- He is a former Vice President and Chief Scientist for Respiratory Disease at Pfizer. As he says in his speech, he's a pulmonary guy (of 40 years). He has impressive credentials.

--- He says until covid he was a "normie". Now he's not, now he's speaking out about how he believes we've been lied to.

His credentials don't mean that because he says we're being lied to we really are being lied to, perhaps he's wrong ... but why wouldn't you look at what he has to say?

If everything we're being told by government and media chimes with how you perceive reality then I guess you have no reason to look. In my own case, when I first heard of man-made climate change it made sense to me and I felt I had no reason to doubt what the scientists were telling us. Nevertheless I still looked at what the critics of the AGW argument said because I wanted to be sure. It wasn't the consensus argument that impressed me though - I really could not care less how many people support an argument, I just thought the AGW argument stood up against criticism. But I'm always willing to change my mind if something comes along and tells me I should. 

[To Petra Liverani]

I watched about half of the Dr Michael Yeadon talk at the rally you shared, then I turned it off once I realized I have already seen and debunked it for others in the past. I have spend countless hours debunking all of the anti vaxx covid deniers arguments for years now, and I am bored of it bc anytime someone sends me something about this topic, when I check it out I have already seen and debunked the same arguments time and time again. So, for me it's gotten too redundant.

You assume you are showing me something that I haven't seen before, but that's not true as I have seen and heard it all, and have spent countless hours researching and debunking it all for countless other people in the past. So, I already know most everything here is false, not bc I am assuming, not because I am listening to the media, but because I have already spent a ton of time debunking it myself. And not just once, but the same exact claims dozens of times for dozens of other people who all show me the same things. So forgive me if I don't want to look at it again.

I am not taking this stance because I am told to by government and media. My source is not government and media, it's the consensus of peer reviewed papers. And more importantly, it's the results, the evidence in the papers that is convincing. Consensus is not how many people support it, it's not a consensus of people, it's a consensus of results, a consensus of peer reviewed papers which is a consensus of evidence, not a consensus of people or scientists. The anti science crowd have given you a strawman lie about this. 

The reason you are giving me that you believe these guys is bc of their credentials. But, say there are 10 people with his credentials who agree with him, and there are also 10,000 other people with the same credentials that disagree with him, according to your logic we should go with the 10,000 people if we are going off credentials. But, you do not do that, you reject the consensus of credentials, yet use credentials to support Dr Michael Yeadon's accuracy so why this double standard? Its because you likely have a populist anti gov, anti media, anti mainstream, anti elites bias. Its this bias that is corrupting your reasoning here and causing some motivated reasoning to happen. Yes, these entities can lie, manipulate or get things wrong, but so can the conspiracy theorists too. And in fact it's the conspiracy media that gets things wrong and lies way more often than the mainstream sources do. Fact checkers display this pretty clearly, as well as all the peer reviewed research into studying media accuracy and conspiracy media etc. 

And its Dr Michael Yeadon's talk that is the opinion and not research. He is speaking at rally, to rally people up and rallying people usually contains emotional manipulation as its emotion based and charismatic etc. Another good question to ask is why is he and these other types of anti mainstream experts marketing their claims to the general public in charismatic ways with debate tactics to convince instead of doing actual research science to convince their peers by doing actual research? It might be that a lot of them say they make way more $ doing this kinda thing than in their previous science jobs. So, kinda suspicious if you ask me. Or maybe they also fell down the rabbit hole as well, scientists can also be duped by misinformation too. Especially if they also have an anti gov anti mainstream bias or political biases etc. 

If Dr Michael Yeadon thinks there was no pandemic, PCR tests don't work and that masks don't work, then I invite him to take two different covid patients with positive test results, one wearing an N95 mask, and the other not wearing a mask, and then he can choose which one of them to cough in his face. After they have coughed in his face then he may walk away. I guarantee you he would not choose the one without the mask to cough in his face.

N95 masks, the fibers are electrically charged, so they keep viruses out with static electricity. The viral particles stick to the fibers, so the virus can be smaller than the holes in the mask and the mask will still stop them. Yes, some virus might leak out the sides, but the mask also works by keeping the viral load in the air smaller and close to the covid patient and not spewing it dozens of feet out as a projectile. He claims that the media says they are filters for your breath, this is likely a strawman bc I have never heard anyone make that exact claim before. Masks aren't 100% its not black and white, they work as a spectrum depending on different circumstances and situations, and are better than no mask at all, yet he is framing it into a false dilemma fallacy of either working or not working. That's not how it works. 

Im sure he agrees that the spanish flu was a real pandemic in 1918, and everyone was wearing masks during that pandemic too, and there was also anti mask crowds, and mask mandatest too. So, it does look like a pandmeic, even though he says mask wearing looks like it's not a pandemic. He claims Remdesivir killed people, but just type that in with fact check after, it's been debunked, all his claims have been debunked. 

[To Petra Liverani]

When I typed in Richard Dawkins into Bitchute's search all the videos that come up of him are right wing conspiracy theorists using him as a scapegoat. So yes it is all right wing conspiracy anti science religious content. Since Richard Dawkins is the famous atheist scientist he's a scapegoat for evolution deniers, creationists and now I see on Bitchute also anti woke and anti trans stuff now too. Bitchute is full of poison. 

[To Jason Mathias ]

You really don't understand the genetic fallacy, do you, Jason? It's a very, very important fallacy to understand. Let's spell it out and then I'll show you how truly absurd your argument against even looking at what Dr Michael Yeadon, former top respiratory scientist at Pfizer, has to say.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Genetic-Fallacy
Basing the truth claim of an argument on the origin of its claims or premises.
Tip: Remember that considering the source is often a useful heuristic in quickly assessing if the claim is probably true or not, but dismissing the claim or accepting it as true based on the source is fallacious.

A video of Dr Michael Yeadon speaking at a rally is also shown on YouTube. (I first saw the video on FB and then looked for it on YT but couldn't find it initially which is why I used the Bitchute link.)
https://youtu.be/U8c7tRZh96Y

Dr Bo Bennett, the owner of this site, has his own channel on YouTube on which he has uploaded a number of videos.
https://www.youtube.com/@bobennett7750

Bo Bennett and Michael Yeadon appear in the same source (actually, it's medium rather than source ... but it's never about source in any case, it's always about content in the final analysis). In this case, Bo's videos - unlike those with Dawkins in them assuming your claims are correct - are not being "used" in any way - it is his own channel.

[To Petra Liverani]

I've understood the genetic fallacy for many years. I am a master contributor on this page, you don't think I haven't come across the genetic fallacy before? Come on.... The key here is in the Tip: "Remember that considering the source is often a useful heuristic in quickly assessing if the claim is probably true or not, but dismissing the claim or accepting it as true based on the source (which is what you did, not me) is fallacious." I did not claim that the content is false just because of the source. I said the source is not a reliable source of accurate information due to the MBFC report. This is a fact that has been proven by all the independent fact checkers. You know, those things that check the factual accuracy of the content. If you notice, the first thing I did was the useful heuristic, and it wasn't based on my bias of the source, it was based on media bias fact check's report of the source, a report based on a methodology and that uses all the available fact checkers in a network. It was the fact checkers that determined that the content was false. You even posted a wikipedia page that says your source Dr Yeadon is false and pushes misinformation about covid.

Is what is absurd is you claiming we should listen to Dr Yeadon while at the same time telling us he is repeating false information. You say we should believe him just bc of his credentials, well that is also the genetic fallacy as well as the argument from authority fallacy. He is stating opinions at a rally, there is no evidence being presented by him, no research he is doing to show etc. Yet you believe what he says is true just bc of the source, the source being he is a pulmonary dr who worked at pfizer. 

Is what's also absurd is you thinking my skepticism is absurd in response to actual absurd claims such as Covid not existing at all, Covid being a made up false flag narrative, that there was no pandemic at all, that viruses don't even exist at all, hospitals and doctors killing patients on purpose not covid, covid vaccines not being vaccines but are really just poison designed to intentionally kill everyone off the planet by a mysterious evil "they" and want to take over the world. Yet my scepticism about that is absurd? Im sorry but those claims are absurd, not my skepticism towards them. These unfalsifiable claims are so absurd that their content doesn't even need to be addressed. A lot like how the unfalsifiable claims of an invisible flying donkey monster around mars doesn't need to be. It's so improbable and absurd that its in the realm of fantasy, not reality. unfalsifiability 

And even given that, I still addressed a lot of the claims and content made here and by Dr Yeadon, so don't pretend like I haven't. And I also said I have fact checked all these same claims before countless times, so I have addressed the content more that you could ever know, just not for you bc I am tired of repeating myself to anti vaxxers. This is now I know the claims and content are false as I have told you, not bc of the source. And since I addressed the claims and content, it's not a genetic fallacy. I simply started off by using a useful tool i.e media bias fact check to show you that the source isn't a reliable source of information just in case YOU didn't know that. It's important to assess the sources first before one begins accepting the claims blindly. Bc I believe it's important for you to know about your sources before you decide to use it as a reliable source of information. If not at least to go and fact check the claims first. Which you apparently did with wikipedia, but for some reason you still believe Dr Yeadon. 

Yes, Dr Bo is on Youtube, but he also isn't on Bitchute either and he wouldn't be bc its a disinformation propaganda source. Most all the content on Bitchute is disinformation, the same can't be said for youtube. The accurate information on youtube won't be on Bitchute, but the inaccurate information on Bitchute can be seen on youtube sometimes even though Youtube tries to ban it as a part of its quality control. 

[To Jason Mathias ]

OK Jason, a number of points.

1. It makes absolutely no difference who you or who anyone else is, it's content that counts.

2. This quote from Carole Wade is extremely pertinent:
“People can be extremely intelligent, have taken a critical thinking course, and know logic inside and out. Yet they may just become clever debaters, not critical thinkers, because they are unwilling to look at their own biases.”

What is clear is that people's biases override their ability to think logically. They may have an exceptional ability to recognise logical fallacies and make a logical argument but when they have an inclination to believe one way or another and the evidence is in contraction of that inclination to believe, logic flies out the window - this applies to people whichever side of the "conspiracy" fence they're on. Where people have a strong inclination to believe they will follow that over reason.

3. What you constantly do is put forward strawman arguments. I will give a few examples:

a. "... or accepting it as true ..."
I didn't ask you to accept what Michael Yeadon says as true or even, in the first instance, ask you to look at the video I put in my comment. I quoted what Michael Yeadon said about science which was relevant to the subjective/objective conversation. Readers could simply look at the quote and agree or disagree and leave it at that ... and if so inclined watch the video and look at the information about all-cause mortality I linked to which Michael referred to in his speech.

All you had to do, Jason, was decide if you agreed with Michael's take on science or not and perhaps respond on that account. You didn't look at the video (source Dr Michael Yeadon, former top respiratory scientist at Pfizer), not Bitchute. Bitchute is merely the medium (which can distort the source material, of course, and so in a sense is also a source but we can at least look at the material first to see if we think the medium has distorted it).

Instead, you simply looked up what "authority" said about Bitchute and SOTT - "appeal to authority" fallacy. If you always consult "authority" before ever looking at anything that says things in opposition to "authority" how can you be sure that "authority" is correct?

You committed the genetic fallacy.

What overrides anything to do with the dodginess of the medium the video is shown on is the intelligence in what Michael says about science and the fact that he has pretty good credentials (not that they validate what he says, of course, but they do at least provide a reason to consider what he says). These are what should speak to you, Jason, if you're really thinking, not the medium of display. These are what should lead you to watch the video, not check out what authority says about Bitchute. And, of course, as it happens the video is shown on YouTube too which makes a mockery of the Bitchute argument.

b. "You're assuming that I think Richard Dawkins is a credible source ..."
Not at all - I have no idea what you think about him, I'm just saying he's not a far-right conspiracy theorist so right there the credibility of "authority's" description of Bitchute is a little undermined, isn't it? You mentioned videos "using" him - true but here's a perfectly respectable interview with him which is also shown on YouTube.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Me-sVvIImxg/

c. "Ironically you're the one who is using the argument from authority fallacy by cherry picking a single scientists quote/opinion and using his credentials ..."
Not at all. I simply put his quote about science forward with links. I'm not saying what he says is gospel. I have in fact researched the topic quite a lot and my research indicates that a lot of what he says is true but then there's other things he says I know little about so I cannot be sure, however, it certainly aligns with the rest of the information I've looked at.

4. "You even posted a wikipedia page that says your source Dr Yeadon is false and pushes misinformation about covid."
Just because I post something doesn't mean I agree with it. Isn't it incredibly obvious I don't think of him as conspiracy theorist? Think, Jason, think.

5. "He is stating opinions at a rally, there is no evidence being presented by him, no research he is doing to show etc."
No he backs what he says and he refers to Denis Rancourt's all-cause mortality material which I linked to.

One thing he refers to is the PCR technique that has been used as a test with only Emergency Use Authorisation status for covid. As a scientist he's used the PCR and he says he knows from that experience it's not a diagnostic test AND:

• This is indicated by its EUA status otherwise why would it have that status?
• This is also said on the packet
• This is also indicated by its inventor, Kary Mullis (at 1:35), and many others. [An argument against Kary Mullis saying it himself is that he was talking about HIV when he made the statement that the PCR cannot tell you if you're sick. It makes no difference what subject he was talking about, it is clear he was making a general statement about what the PCR technique does ... and doesn't do.]
• We are also told by infectious diseases specialist, Sanjaya Senanayake, on Australian ABC TV, that there is no gold standard test for infection by sars-cov-2.

So it's not a diagnostic test, however, cases are determined on the basis of a positive result with the test. We also know that altering the number of cycles that the test is run affects results. Can you see the problems here? Can you see a lack of scientific certainty here?

Now if you agree with Michael Yeadon that science is about questioning then you should be questioning why an alleged vaccine that had very little time to be evaluated for both safety and efficacy was mandated for an illness for which there is no gold standard test and which doesn't have a symptomology that distinguishes it from other respiratory illnesses such as cold and flu.

And you should also look at the trajectory of all-cause mortality numbers and have a ponder about those too. Ask yourself which hypothesis that trajectory supports better.

Not all knowledge is tied up in scientific papers, Jason. As lay people we can work out a lot of things all by ourselves - sure, we can take guidance from others more expert but we don't have to simply accept what people say because of their credentials, we can take their guidance while looking at the source material and work it out for ourselves.

1. It makes absolutely no difference who you or who anyone else is, it's content that counts. ((I never said it did, who's committing the strawmans again?

2. This quote from Carole Wade is extremely pertinent:
“People can be extremely intelligent, have taken a critical thinking course, and know logic inside and out. Yet they may just become clever debaters, not critical thinkers, because they are unwilling to look at their own biases.” Yeah, no kidding ((how ironic projection is))

What is clear is that people's biases override their ability to think logically. They may have an exceptional ability to recognise logical fallacies and make a logical argument but when they have an inclination to believe one way or another and the evidence is in contraction of that inclination to believe, logic flies out the window - this applies to people whichever side of the "conspiracy" fence they're on. Where people have a strong inclination to believe they will follow that over reason. Yeah, no kidding ((how ironic projection is))

3. What you constantly do is put forward strawman arguments. I will give a few examples:

a. "... or accepting it as true ..."
I didn't ask you to accept what Michael Yeadon says as true or even, in the first instance, ask you to look at the video I put in my comment. I quoted what Michael Yeadon said about science which was relevant to the subjective/objective conversation. Readers could simply look at the quote and agree or disagree and leave it at that ... and if so inclined watch the video and look at the information about all-cause mortality I linked to which Michael referred to in his speech. ((You cropped out what I said so its out of context, so you are now making up your own context with it. I did disagree, by pointing out that he doesn't know what scientific consensus means, or at least is just parroting the anti science conspiracy view of what scientific consensus is, so maybe he's just fallen for that anti science propaganda. Its a consensus of peer review which is a meta analysis of results not scientists opinions or votes like he makes it seem. See, this is why I didn't bother I am tired of having to repeat myself to people who don't read or are not willing to remember or acknowledge what I say))

All you had to do, Jason, was decide if you agreed with Michael's take on science or not and perhaps respond on that account. You didn't look at the video (source Dr Michael Yeadon, former top respiratory scientist at Pfizer), not Bitchute. Bitchute is merely the medium (which can distort the source material, of course, and so in a sense is also a source but we can at least look at the material first to see if we think the medium has distorted it). ((I did respond to that account, I did look at the video with Dr Yeadon as the source, and I did debunk his claims. I also source checked Bitchute as well for you.)) So please stop pretending like I didn't. 

Instead, you simply looked up what "authority" said about Bitchute and SOTT - "appeal to authority" fallacy. If you always consult "authority" before ever looking at anything that says things in opposition to "authority" how can you be sure that "authority" is correct? ((It's not authority, its fact checkers with a methodology. And it's right, just go and look at Bitchute's home page, there are videos there about space not existing bc NASA lies to you about it exiting etc. I also already told you I have seen this video before and have debunked Dr Yeadon's claims before for other duped conspiracy theorists like yourself. So please stop acting like I didn't see it.))

You committed the genetic fallacy.

What overrides anything to do with the dodginess of the medium the video is shown on is the intelligence in what Michael (mediabiasfactcheck) says about (Bitchute) science and the fact that he (it) has pretty good credentials (not that they validate what he (it) says, of course, but they do at least provide a reason to consider what he (they say) says). These are what should speak to you, Jason, if you're really thinking, not the medium of display. These are what should lead you to (look at mediabiasfactcheck's rating) watch the video, not check out what authority says about (covid) Bitchute. (See the projection, irony and double standards here?)

And, of course, as it happens the video is shown on YouTube too which makes a mockery of the Bitchute argument. ((No it doesn't, I already addressed this in my last comment, READ IT and DONT MAKE ME REPEAT IT AGAIN!)) 

b. "You're assuming that I think Richard Dawkins is a credible source ..."
Not at all - I have no idea what you think about him, I'm just saying he's not a far-right conspiracy theorist so right there the credibility of "authority's" description of Bitchute is a little undermined, isn't it? You mentioned videos "using" him - true but here's a perfectly respectable interview with him which is also shown on YouTube.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Me-sVvIImxg/ (that's the only one I can find, all the others are using him as a scapegoat) so way to cherry pick there. And you keep try to make a false equivalence fallacy with youtube and bitchute. Most the propaganda disinformation videos on bitchute like the one you shared wont be on youtube bcn youtube bans them out of its quality control features, bitchute has no quality control. So all the ok videos on bitchute will be on youtube, but all the disinformation videos on bitchute won't be on youtube. False equivalence) 

c. "Ironically you're the one who is using the argument from authority fallacy by cherry picking a single scientists quote/opinion and using his credentials ..."
Not at all. I simply put (mbfc's report) his quote about (your source) science forward with links. I'm not saying what (it) he says is gospel. I have in fact researched the topic quite a lot and my research indicates that a lot of what he says is true (half truths out of context) but then there's other things he says I know little about so I cannot be sure, however, it certainly aligns with the rest of the information I've looked at (on sources rates as propaganda pseudoscience disinformation sources).

4. "You even posted a wikipedia page that says your source Dr Yeadon is false and pushes misinformation about covid."
Just because I post something doesn't mean I agree with it (then you are cherry picking what you want to believe and committing special pleadings). Isn't it incredibly obvious I don't think of him as conspiracy theorist? Think, Jason, think. (well he is by definition conspiracy theory  which means you are denying reality due to your biases) 

5. "He is stating opinions at a rally, there is no evidence being presented by him, no research he is doing to show etc."
No he backs what he says and he refers to Denis Rancourt's all-cause mortality material which I linked to. (and I liked to a fact check that debunked it as a flawed analysis) 

One thing he refers to is the PCR technique that has been used as a test with only Emergency Use Authorisation status for covid. As a scientist he's used the PCR and he says he knows from that experience it's not a diagnostic test AND: And 10s of 1000s of other scientists disagree with him, So you going with the consensus of experts or just going to cherry pick the one that fits with your conspiracy anti gov NWO worldview?) I can link a ton of fact checks that debunk this as well if youd like?

This is indicated by its EUA status otherwise why would it have that status?
This is also said on the packet
This is also indicated by its inventor, Kary Mullis (at 1:35), and many others. [An argument against Kary Mullis saying it himself is that he was talking about HIV when he made the statement that the PCR cannot tell you if you're sick. (Yes, I have also seen the videos of him as well and debunked them as well. Want me to share some fact checks on that too?) It makes no difference what subject he was talking about, it is clear he was making a general statement about what the PCR technique does ... and doesn't do.]
We are also told by infectious diseases specialist, Sanjaya Senanayake, on Australian ABC TV, that there is no gold standard test for infection by sars-cov-2.(cherry picking authority opinions again)
So it's not a diagnostic test, however, cases are determined on the basis of a positive result with the test. We also know that altering the number of cycles that the test is run affects results. Can you see the problems here? Can you see a lack of scientific certainty here? Just fact check the claim and read them and clink on the links to the evidence debunking this stuff)

Now if you agree with Michael Yeadon that science is about questioning then you should be questioning why an alleged vaccine that had very little time to be evaluated for both safety and efficacy was mandated for an illness for which there is no gold standard test and which doesn't have a symptomology that distinguishes it from other respiratory illnesses such as cold and flu. Questioning is not science, it's only a tiny part of it. Those who say science is about questioning want you to doubt the science. It's a propaganda technique. And all of those premises are false so your conclusion is also false. 

And you should also look at the trajectory of all-cause mortality numbers and have a ponder about those too. Ask yourself which hypothesis that trajectory supports better. (I already posted a debunking fact check on this here)

Not all knowledge is tied up in scientific papers (all scientific evidence is), Jason. As lay people we can work out a lot of things all by ourselves (to the point of overturning all of scientific consensus of experts, I doubt it) - sure, we can take guidance from others more expert but we don't have to simply accept what people say (again, results aren't what people say, results are just results, evidence is evidence so stop equating the two as being equal to an opinion) because of their credentials, we can take their guidance while looking at the source material and work it out for ourselves. (Dont be a Dunning Kruger) 

"Questioning is only a tiny bit of science. Those who say science is about questioning want you to doubt the science. It's a propaganda technique.

"Not all knowledge is tied up in scientific papers (all scientific evidence is) ."

I think the chasm in our thinking is so large we should just leave it there, Jason. The notion that questioning is only a tiny bit of science and that Michael Yeadon's statement that science is questioning has some ulterior motive is too beyond the pale for me.

[To Petra Liverani]

I'm not saying he has an ulterior motive, like I said, he’s probably just been duped by popular viral conspiracy paranoia like a lot of people have been. It's just as contagious as covid, except it's a mind virus.

And It’s not Dr Yeadon's statement. All the anti science pseudoscience conspiracy theorists have said the same statement many times way before he said it here, he’s probably just repeating it Bc he heard it on the conspiracy stuff he watches or engages with. He’s obviously been exposed to the conspiracy crowd and is a big part of their tribe as he’s speaking at their rally to them with cheers and applause. Even in Wikipedia it says he’s their hero and so maybe he also likes being a part of a tribe and community where he is a famous star among them for social needs? Who knows.

They tell you “the real” science is questioning the science Bc they want you to reject the established science, what they call the mainstream narrative. They want you to question, doubt and then to reject the mainstream scientific consensus, so they use this statement to manipulate you to do just that. They want you to reject the science in the name of science so its very sneaky. They use the term "question" very vaguely and in the wrong context. The first step in the scientific method is to question with curiosity, or to solve a problem. For example, why is the sky blue, why are plants green, how do we make an engine work etc. But it’s not for ignorant non scientists non science experts to question well established, accurate and well understood scientific consensus on robust theories like evolution, climate change, germ theory of disease etc. Scientists can question aspects of these theories to improve upon them by doing research, but to doubt the whole thing without doing any scientific research, or based on flawed debunked analysis of other people's data that demonstrates that it's wrong just bc of a conspiracy theory belief in some unfalsifiable evil NWO cabal that wants to kill us all is not science, its insanity and is politically motivated anti gov, anti elite, anti establishment populism, us vs them tribalism and its all very psychologically motivated. 

There is a difference between "question the science" and asking a question in science that's a part of the scientific method meant to try and solve something. "Question the science" means to doubt "the mainstream science narrative". Questioning in science means to ask questions out of curiosity or in the pursuit of solving a problem or a question. After the science theory is robust and well understood, to question that just bc of a conspiracy theory that fly's in the face of the established scientific evidence and reality is not scientific and not even logical. Its ideological, anti gov, anti establishment, anti elite, anti mainstream, ideals. 

[To Petra Liverani]

I watched the rest just to refresh my memory. (He makes all the same exact claims all the anti vaxx NWO conspiracy nut jobs make. He said nothing new at all, he is just repeating all the same arguments and speaking to the choir at that rally. They all cheer for it, they love it, they are all nuts. 

He claims the doctors and hospitals killed people with drugs and ventilators, not Covid bc there is no virus it doesn't exist, it was just made up by this mysterious "they" people. And that the vaccines aren't really vaccines to help, but rather are a deliberate intent to kill all of you off (the NWO depopulation conspiracy theory). When ever he says this stuff the crowd roars with cheer and applaud which shows you its just all emotional us vs them political tribalism, NOT science.

He is claiming that the vaccine will immediately produce autoimmune disease that will kill anyone who takes it. Nevermind that I have gotten the vaccine with 3 boosters as did my entire family and none of us not one had any autoimmune issues, no one got sick, ill, injured or died and my last shot was years ago. More than 5.55 billion people worldwide have received a dose of a Covid-19 vaccine, equal to about 72.3 percent of the world population. According to the quack who you want us to believe, there should only be 3 billion people left on earth right now instead of 8 billion and growing. Everything he predicted has not come true, he's just nuts and a crazy person whos tin foil hat is on too tight. 

He said he was a normi b4 2020 which means he has recently fell for all this anti covid NWO propaganda probably due to mental distress from the pandemic. He is saying pandemics don't exist, they never exist, viruses don't exist and that they will tell you they exist so they can kill you with vaccines and doctors. So I can't tell if he's delusional paranoid, a con artist, or just duped. But there is some mental illness here for sure. 

MRNA vaccines werent developed in a year, its decades in the making and they used artificial intelligence to crack it so fast but he doesn't tell you that part. So it's not like previous situations. Then he ties it into the NWO conspiracies of digital ID and central banks digital currencies to control the world etc. Digital tyrannical control then kill everyone off the "they." He stops with if you trust gov then you'll lose your freedom and your life bc they will kill all of you and he presents no actual evidence of this, just opinions. It's totally insane stuff, but hey these are insane people and I have no idea how or why you can believe it and take it seriously. 

This is obviously not a forum for an open discussion about covid so it is a pointless exercise continuing. It will be very interesting to see how things unfold. Very interesting indeed.

My question wasn't about covid, which is why I thought you were a bot. And your video and sources aren't even really about covid, they are more about the NWO depopulation conspiracy theory that's been around for many decades. They just co-opted covid into the conspiracy when covid happened that's all. 

You say it will be interesting to see how things unfold, but they have already unfolded and the conspiracy theorists are wrong as usual. He claimed that our bodies would reject the covid vaccine as a foreign invader and attack itself with autoimmune responses that would kill us all. This process he is explaining happens immediately, kind of like when someone gets the wrong blood transfusion. Since this did not happen, and everyone is still alive and well that proved it false a long time ago since most people were vaccinated over 2 years ago now. If there where foreign cells in your body from the vaccine like he claims, then it would have been attacked long ago. 

So it's over, it's done, the conspiracy theorists were wrong. But of course they were, all you had to do was fact check what they say. But, you probably couldn't do that bc they told you not to trust the media, not to trust the science, not to trust the corporations, not to trust the government, not to trust the doctors, not to trust the hospitals, not to trust the institutions, and to only trust what they say on social media. Which is just paranoid speculations and opinions. 

Only trust them (the ones spewing this crap). This is the #1 sign of a cult, and it pains me that someone who participates in this forum and is apparently concerned about reason, does not see this.

[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

If the cult tells you to not trust anyone but them, then where can you go to get a different view or opinion from the cult? You can't.

If everyone on the planet is a part of the conspiracy, except for the cult who knows the real hidden truth, then where else can you go but right into their arms? Especially when the mysterious "they" are out to kill you and everyone on the planet.

When you don't know who "they" are who control everything, then "they" could be anywhere, could be anyone, and that makes the mind suspicious of everything, i.e the medicine, the food, the air, the information, the water and indeed they do incorporate all of this into the grand conspiracy (Then they sell you all the survival gear, food, gold, silver, water and alternative medicine and supplements you'll need to survive the conspiracy). So, where can you go? Who can you trust? This kind of mindset breeds paranoia, distrust, doubt, division, polarization and is degrading to our institutions, science, experts and democracies. 

Way back in 2011/2012, I was really into all the conspiracy theories, I would binge watch Alex Jones and many other conspiracy theory video platforms like Bitchute b4 Bitchute existed. Back then it was Wall of films, films for action and places like that which I use to go to.

Anyways, back then they told me that Obama was going to destroy the country, implement martial law with concentration camps, and the NWO would send in UN troops to take over the U.S and wipe us out with their deliberate FED central bank currency collapse scheme, so I went out and bought $14k in silver and guess what, that was back in 2012 and its still not worth as much as I paid for it at the time. Anyways, none of this conspiracy stuff happened, they have been saying it for decades now, scamming new generations of people as they find it online as I did. 

When Alex Jones started to talk about how climate science was also a part of the NWO scheme I knew he was either lying or uninformed about the science. Bc climate science was something I knew quite a bit about.

And when young earth creationists and flat earthers became popular online, I started debating with them and I learned all the misinformation tactics. That's when I became interested in fallacies, logic, critical thinking, epistemology, philosophy, psychology etc. After I began my critical thinking journey, then I saw bs everywhere and now I cant unsee it lol. It's a bit of a curse really. 

Especially in this day and age. 

[To Jason Mathias ]

OK, so these are definitely my final words.

Yesterday, I came across the Substack of Dr Phillip Altman, BPharm(Hons), MSc, PhD, a retired Pharmacologist and Clinical Trial and Drug Regulatory Affairs Consultant with more than 40 years experience.  Dr Altman has dealt extensively with the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (equiv. of FDA) throughout his career. He has worked for and consulted with most of the international pharmaceuticals represented in Australia. He was fundamental in the establishment of the Australian Regulatory and Clinical Scientists Association (ARCS), which is a peak educational forum for more than 2000 clinical and regulatory scientists working within the Australian pharmaceutical industry. He has a Life Membership of this Association.

He is running as an independent Member of Parliament because of his concerns about the new generation of gene-based COVID-19 “vaccines”.

In his Substack article, Collapse of the COVID Injection Narrative, he focuses on the article by Wilson Sy.  an investment analyst with 64 publications to his name, Simpson's Paradox in the correlations between excess mortality and COVID-19 injections: a case study of iatrogenic pandemic for elderly Australians. published on ResearchGate. Wilson Sy is the former head of research for government regulatory body, APRA (Australian Prudential Regulation Authority), and a former executive at another government regulatory body, ASIC (Australian Securities and Investments Commission).

These two men have very impressive credentials, don't they? Not that credentials mean anything at all necessarily but nevertheless they have very impressive credentials.

I'll let you decide if you wish to look at the articles and determine whatever you make of them if you do.

P2 and P3 are superfluous.  If you read P4, you’ll note that P4 follows from P2 and P3.  Therefore the argument can be restated with only two premises:

P1.  Science is based on evidences

P4.  Evidences are subjective  

C.    Therefore Science is subjective 

So there’s no point in addressing P2 and P3’s merits since they’re merged into P4.  

[To Darren]

Darren,

This is a strong observation and relates to my Answer about complex arguments. It may be that P4 is intended to be an intermediate conclusion that, together with P1, implies the main conclusion C, while following from P2 and P3.

In this case, P2 and P3 would not be superfluous (at least not in every respect) because they are supporting the intermediate conclusion P4. But the presence of a complex argument would make it possible in principle for a non sequitur to occur between premises, as I talked about in my Answer.

I would agree, because if 10,000 people out of 10,000 people all have the same perception and agree on it then its considered objective, not subjective. Yes, there might not be such a thing as absolute objectivity because what we call objective is just made up of a bunch of subjective perceptions agreeing together. So this meme is kind of distorting the meaning of what the term objective means. 

People often say things like "everything is subjective" so they don't have to yield to evidence that goes against their beliefs. If they can make it seem as if it's all a matter of opinion then their 'educated guess' can be placed on par with high-quality scientific data. That way, even if that data suggests they're wrong, they can just shrug and say "ah well, it's all subjective at the end of the day" and never update their priors.

See Darren’s comment from June 4th, too.

It might be better to not read the discussion, so you're doing the right thing as of now...