Crime 4 year old boy dies of flu after anti vax mom ignores tamiflu prescription and consulted Facebook

[Voodoo_Child906]

ok if we agree they can change when new evidence comes in BUT you only want evidence pursued along one stream and one stream only, how do you allow for change to come in.

You seem to be saying 'once a theory is established change is only acceptable if along the same line and in support of the prior position'. You don't see that as problematic?

What is the fear of a scientist testing something contrary to the established beliefs? Again, failure just helps the established beliefs.

Are you familiar with this famous line repeated by Sherlock Holmes

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth"

It is a key of deductive reasoning. It means that sometimes you cannot prove directly what you are looking for but you can prove it by eliminating everything that is not true. By pursuing the 'skeptic' paths and proving they are NOT the answer, you make it clearer that your answer is the best one.

Not at all, people and groups can pursue whatever experiments and data they see fit and if that evidence convinces everyone else then it will become a part of or overturn the theory. A good example of this was when Einstein and all the mainstream General Relativity physicists at first refused to accept Quantum Mechanics but after each subsequent successful experiment they had no choice but to accept it.

I'm trying to find out where the line is though between denialism and skepticism. Are you fine with say flat earth theory or creationism being pursued as valid competing theories to the current dominant theories?