>>14390189>I'm not appealing to the majority of peopleConsensus requires majority. Thanks for playing
>I'm appealing to a scientific consensusIt's the same fallacy no matter which majority you cherry pick.
>I didntNow you are directly lying. You said consensus, then you moved the goal post to research papers. Your quote says "it's achieved through" ie it's not he same thing as what is stated in the quote. The quote is just the mechanism for achieving.
>Non sequitur, we're taking about good theories. No, you dogmatically think theyre good
>Plausibility is irrelevant100% cope lie
>Such situations are irrelevant to this discussionDenial is a hell of a drug. If two competing theories are almost just as good as each other you don't reject the "lesser" if it's still highly plausible. Do we reject QM bc GR can explain more observations slightly better????
>doesn't even contradict what you claimed I denyIt does. Don't bother responding if you just invent things without justification
>How so? Pointing out something is a fallacy, no matter if it's true or not, is never a red herring. Keep proving you don't know what red herring means
>What makes a theory terrible?Lack of sufficient evidence, assuming correlations are valid, significant gaps, ad hoc fallacies, evidence bias, denial of contradictions JUST for starters. Asking this question was clear sophistry
>I don't know what you mean by "terrible" so how can I answer? You are dogging the question as expected
>...to reject scientific consensus Scientific consensus != "large body of evidence" like you keep desperately implying. SC is merely the position (theory) shared by majority of scientists. Ergo you're saying rejecting that theory requires a better theory/falsification therefore you are denying a theory should be rejected on the basis of being terrible bc you pretend it's not terrible via appeal to consensus fallacy, as I claimed you did. The consensus CAN BE terrible. Your denial doesn't change that.
