Whilst there is debate over causes, the hypothesis is generally considered "reasonable", published by the BMJ from research at UCL ... of course, in this post truth world anyone can declare this as myth, nonsense and "provably untrue" which is itself untrue. It is undecided ->
https://twitter.com/jamesrbuk/status/1362323657259900930
Alas, this is the problem with unsettled matters. Even with settled matters where scientific consenus is decided, some can always say "prove it" and point to ever more extreme counterfactuals which have to be disproved, slowly, one by one - see climate change.
The same tactics are being used by another group of extremists to try and counter lockdown. Whilst there are counterfactuals, the scientific consensus is reasonably settled on the benefits but that won't stop those individuals from peddling their beliefs as the truth.
And, of course, they can always argue that specific incidents of progress in history have required some to take an opposing view to the consensus ... this, is true but that does not make their arguments any more true.
The worst examples of this is when they turn to the line of prove me wrong or there is no proof against their idea ... the abscence of proof is not proof itself.
What you need to remember is that scientific consensus works on the principle that "this is the best model we have". All models are wrong but this is the best one. Unfortunately (and also fortunately) that means the model can never be truly proven and can always be countered ...
... which is why when someone says that this is "provably untrue" then you must ask them for a model that is more "provably true" than the one that they are dismissing.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
