• peppermint@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 years ago

    the reasons are cryptic. but you are basing your end of the discussion on .com web sites and magazines. this is not a proper way to claim evidence. you should be asking yourself, how can the other side reproduce, or follow your arguments, and provide links to support every important point you make.

    half of medicine is a pseudoscience: you can’t reproduce many of the researches, due to the undisclosed data or proprietary recipes, and medical scientists often have a very vague idea of how to do statistical analysis (medical test paradox as explained here, changing data acquisition protocols, lack of transparency of how the data was collected and operated, and many more). that doesn’t mean, though, that magazines, a middle man, are a good place to refer to when arguing about it. others will support your discussion if they are worth talking to.

    • disrooter@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 years ago

      Man, I’m not pretending this is the truth, I’m just saying mine are legitimate ideas and I have the right to express them. This is censorship, period.

      • peppermint@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 years ago

        this (lemmy.ml) is a face instance, censorship is expected here (and skeptically frowned upon). admins ban on face instances quite aggressively. my point being, ideas are easier to silence than evidence. but then, isn’t that the point of evidence. in that case, I would’ve been on your side without discussing this.