- #1
dgtech
- 70
- 1
Debunking a "debunkment"
Is it acceptable for all the topics that are in the "already debunked" list that is not supposed to be discussed?
And by that I don't mean explaining why the theory is true, but why the "debunkment" (is that even a word in English?) is inadequate for missing some fundamental points, through a logical process that involves known facts that build upon a consistent theory? That includes explaining exactly how points of the debunk can be still valid despite its inadequateness
It would be appropriate such topics to be open to discussion if logical truth is a priority, otherwise it would be just the censoring out of them with a few excuses why, literally ignoring all the available scientific evidence that might have appeared after they got debunked the last time, viewing the whole concept as a predetermined dogma instead of a scientific question.
Is it acceptable for all the topics that are in the "already debunked" list that is not supposed to be discussed?
And by that I don't mean explaining why the theory is true, but why the "debunkment" (is that even a word in English?) is inadequate for missing some fundamental points, through a logical process that involves known facts that build upon a consistent theory? That includes explaining exactly how points of the debunk can be still valid despite its inadequateness
It would be appropriate such topics to be open to discussion if logical truth is a priority, otherwise it would be just the censoring out of them with a few excuses why, literally ignoring all the available scientific evidence that might have appeared after they got debunked the last time, viewing the whole concept as a predetermined dogma instead of a scientific question.