The claim "vaccines do not cause autism" is not an evidence-based claim because studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism.

Oh look, the bizzaro scientific method.

[–] ramble81@lemmy.zip 6 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Unfortunately they are starting to exploit the biggest “weakness” in science. That theories are valid only because they have yet to be disproven. And that theories will change if new evidence is introduced to the contrary.

They are now basically saying “well since you can’t prove it, there’s a chance” which is fundamentally correct at its base but it’s in extremely bad faith.

They’re now basically forcing people to prove a negative, which is impossible as a means of forcing their views.

[–] snooggums@piefed.world 4 points 1 hour ago

That theories are valid only because they have yet to be disproven.

No, scientific theories are valid because they are overwhelmingly supported by evidence.

While it is true that they can be changed or replaced by evidence that dos not fit the theory, they are not just speculation waiting to be disproven. The 'biggest weakness' you are describing is a complete misunderstanding of science.

Your last sentence is correct, but also contradicts your first paragraph.

[–] fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works 11 points 4 hours ago

The claim that "vaccines do not make you actually super hot and cool" is not an evidenced-based claim because no one has actually ruled out that vaccinated people are cooler and actually better hangs.

Equally valid statement

[–] Emi@ani.social 30 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Prove me "crazy thing" wrong! No I don't have to show evidence you have to show evidence against it.

[–] darkdemize@sh.itjust.works 27 points 6 hours ago

It's so stupid. You can't prove a negative. The people claiming vaccines cause autism need to show evidence for their claim, not the other way around.