Why do people deny evolution?

I don't know what makes you think that it's possible to synthesize a vaccine or medication in less than an hour.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with the physical process of making vaccines or medications.

If you knew anything about any truth and about any life control processes (body metabolism), hereditary processes (inheritance), and life defense processes (immunology), you would you have been able to synthesize a vaccine and/or medication for any newly emerged virus in less than an hour...

Certainly none of us can be expert in every field with which scientific theory and hypothesis are supported, or are alleged to be supported. But if one doesn't understand the basic principles which underly an hypothesis, then one won't be able to judge the evidence being presented. I don't know the history of the Romans so thoroughly that i can say yeah or nay to every hypothesis which an historian (or an historical punter) will advance. But i do understand the principles of historiography, and that means i have the tools to judge the underpinning of the hypothesis being offered. I don't suggest that one need possess encyclopedic knowledge. I do suggest that one understand the principles of what is being dicussed enough to come to an informed conclusion. I don't know enough to deny PE, although i find it suspicious. But then, i don't offer an opinion on a subject about which i am not well-enough informed. At a certain point, all of us must defer to those with more specialist knowledge. But all of us have a responsibility to ourselves to know enough to judge.

vaccines?????????

Hmmmmmm, you are not aware that they are highly dangerous and created to destroy the immune system of young children???

This ties in with what I was saying about the corporate coup d'etat of the science journals, and the mass media (and congress, and the SCOTUS).

It used to be laughable to think that our gov't might have hidden agendas to cull the population, but as time goes on, I'm not believing any of their ****.

Still, like gunga, Im NOT going to put Herald on ignore. Hes at least entertaining .

when all the evidences are attached automatically to 'positive mutations' and forged skulls of 'humans' in the explanation of the human development. I start thinking who is actually brainwashing whom.

...
Still, like gunga, Im NOT going to put Herald on ignore. Hes at least entertaining .

so, thanks for this posting!! Quite good to read that the work we do, has any merit to some!!!

The corporate press is giving Vlad Putin's speech a wide berth. He's nailed lots of good points in this speech, regarding the effects of the oligarchy's empirical takeover. Long read, but worth it. He's not afraid to call a spade a spade.

the important journals are free of corporate control

Through their training, scientists are equipped with what Sagan calls a “baloney detection kit” — a set of cognitive tools and techniques that fortify the mind against penetration by falsehoods:
...
Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”
Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.

Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.

Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.

If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.

Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.

Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.