So not only are we dealing with anthropological biases we're also dealing with logic: not all bullshit can be shown to be bullshit. One of the most famous examples is my assertion there's a teapot orbiting the Sun between the orbits of Earth and Mars. You say that's bullshit. Now I say prove it's bullshit, prove there isn't a teapot orbiting the Sun between the orbit of Earth and Mars! You can't. You can't prove that's bullshit.

It's at this point you may realize the tables have been subtly turned against you. You see, I made the assertion there's a teapot orbiting the Sun between Earth and Mars. It's not on you to prove that's bullshit, it's on me to provide evidence of my assertion.

So, if you are 100% confident that it is bullshit, what is there to lose? Everything.

Edit: changed 'You say' to 'You see'

Time. There is a lot to cover in school. Time spent to cover all of the bullshit is time taken away from other topics. How much time should be spent in showing that bullshit like phrenology, blood type personality theory, Kirlian auras, the Hollow Earth theory, baraminology, and orgone energy is actually bullshit, and what existing topics should be covered less?

Cost of training. Young Earth Creationists over the last 56 years (dating from Henry Morris's "The Genesis Flood") have assembled a large collection of crappy arguments, every one of which has been shown to be invalid. Many of the counter-arguments are collected in sites like talkorigins.org.

However, it takes specialized knowledge to be able to counter each one. For an example from the talkorigins.org FAQ, suppose a student in physics class asks "I heard that the speed of light has changed a lot. This means that light from galaxies billions of light years away might not really be billions of years old. Is this true?"

How many physics teachers do you know are aware of Barry Setterfield's C-Decay hypothesis and the details of its flaws? How much time would it take to train all teachers to be able to show that each argument is bullshit, rather than simply say it's bullshit then move on?

> My question is, if it can be shown as bullshit, I mean, if you are 100% confident that it is bullshit, what is there to loose? There are always easily manipulated people in the broad public who are being used to weaken the overall perception of validity and the trust in REAL science.

> So they are manipulating people, but not the "others" (pro-vaxxers, climent-change proponets etc). Why not give both sides an opportunity to manipulate people? I mean, if something is clearly bullshit, it should cause no harm, right?

If they had any legitimate claim of sound science they would be perceived as such by the public and thus wouldn't need to push proposals like this. Such methods are used to bypass the peer-review process which is vital to ensure (new) findings are actually valid. This process also has the side-effect that "science" that's falsified/made up (like the autism-and-vaccines study that was falsified but was/is used to influence/manipulate vulnerable or naive parents) is weeded out.

http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

If you have faith, why do you need to have churches?

why don't churches start "red teams" to debate the Word. so that people can be reassured by the certainty of the teachings to bolster faith?

Here in coastal communities many people are still allowed to do "overboard discharge," or dumping raw sewage into the ocean. The understanding being the ocean is so big we couldn't possibly hurt the ecosystem. Here in Maine, there have actually been many deeply flawed scientific studies that justified these policies as scientifically true.

Now, of course, we know how fragile the ocean and, indeed, any ecosystem is. But common belief is that science has shown that dumping your shit in the ocean is environmentally okay and that is used to justify a convenient action. Even though the action hardly passes the (literal) smell test.

There is nothing pornographic about that nudity.

The reality is that the nudity taboo is an artifact of culture that is obsolete.

Primitive religions controlled access to sex by forbidding sex outside of marriage and maintaining a monopoly on access to the marital bed. Sexuality outside of marriage was associated with moral breakdown because it encouraged disobedience to the central source of moral authority.

The interesting thing is that people can encourage their particular nudity taboo while scoffing at others as if a particular part of the human body was implicitly somehow more sinful. The taboo that says its necessary for a woman to hide her face is no different, better, or worse than the taboo that says she has to hide her rear end.

On the other side its perfectly ok for people to maintain the style of dress that makes them comfortable. If you desire to hide everything but your eyeballs that's your right but it becomes morally problematic when people attempt to make the world at large or the internet comport with their sensibilities. Its as sensible as only wearing red and insist that nobody be allowed to wear blue or be seen in the world at large or online attired in blue. Basically the world would be a better place if people didn't impose their hang ups on others.

Your turn.

Perhaps because I'm from a zone where nudity is not a great deal and you can even walk in beach promenades and see nudist beaches and no one cares.