>>14393763>Noon sequiturLie
>Is appealing to scientific evidence a fallacy?You verbatim said you appeal to consensus, then moved the goalpost to scientific evidence.
>Then how can appealing to an overwhelming amount be a fallacy?Strawman. You moved goalposts.
>I didn't say it's the sameThen its 100% irrelevant
>How so?If something is plausible it is always relevant. You are in complete denial.
>this is meaningless because you refuse to explain what your criteria is for determining that two theories are "almost just as good."You have not asked this question even once. You asked what makes a theory terrible out of sophistry, I immediately explained it even though it wasn't necessary, and now we are here. More of your moved goalposts.
> If a theory is falsified it gets rejected.Thats 1 reason to reject a theory
>If it doesnt explain as much evidence as another it gets rejectedLie, as I showed with the QM GR example
>But it cant Neither subsumes the other. Special pleading and completely irrelevant. They are theories that tried to explain the universe. If one explained everything, we'd have no need for the other. You are proven wrong by direct example
>all you have to do is make it better. If you can't, then too bad.Your dogma isn't an argument.
>No. You said I deny "If a theory is terrible you reject it." I never denied thatYes, you did. You deny a consensus (theory) can be terrible via your appeal to consensus fallacy and goalpost moving thus you deny "If a theory is terrible you reject it."
>, I just said it was irrelevant to this discussionWhich is yet another lie of yours, as I proved
>You then claimed that I said "you need falsification or a better theory before you can reject a theory" which doesn't even contradict what you falsely claimed I deny Repeating your "position" is not addressing my rebuttal.
>since you won't explain what "terrible theory" means Are you serious? I just did. More of your lies.
