I frankly don't care if it's censorship. It's a hill I'll happily die on.
"The ends do not justify the means." Even for something as important as addressing climate change.
Anti-Vaxx is basically like that.
As for phlogiston and luminiferous aether - yes, science is not omniscient. But those hypotheses are attributable to insufficiently precise instruments and knowledge.
More importantly, they were positive statements about the world. You're comparing them to the demand for evidence that vaccinations are harmful, to which the best rebuttal is a counter-demand to prove a negative (that they're not harmful).
What else you got?
True statements? A scientist would acknowledge them as adequate approximations, not true statements.
And by the way, let's see you build GPS (relativity) or computers (QM by way of semiconductor physics) using Newtonian mechanics.
> More importantly, they were positive statements about the world. You're comparing them to the demand for evidence that vaccinations are harmful, to which the best rebuttal is a counter-demand to prove a negative (that they're not harmful).
That's precisely the point. Science doesn't need self-appointed police squashing silly ideas like anti-vax precisely because science makes "positive statements about the world." Repeatable results speak for themselves.
[EDIT] To clarify further, allowing squashing of ideas because they don't agree with current scientific consensus will just make Planck's lament all the worse. ("A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.")
> What else you got?
After that last line, a slightly lower opinion of your ability to debate in a civil fashion.
I don't really care what your opinion is of my ability to debate in a civil fashion. That you are incorrect is not an opportunity for me to persuade you; your arguments are simply a vehicle for convincing the onlookers reading the back-and-forth. And to be blunt, when you're resorting to nitpicking words, ignoring points and comparing Newtonian mechanics to anti-vaccination, I also don't really care about abandoning civility.
And if I'm being honest I do get a certain satisfaction from challenging your examples in such a cavalier fashion, because they're frankly silly and incomparable. Considering the stakes (compromising herd immunity, implicitly defending harmful ignorance) I am all-in on censorship and abandoning decorum.
But you're free not to debate with me if you consider me gauche or impolite, just as Amazon is free to censor all the videos on its own platform.
No one bothers calculating v^2/c^2 to estimate the kinetic energy of a Tesla.
You posted a link with red boxes around things, and I'm inferring I'm supposed to make a new conclusion or challenge my beliefs on the subject. But I don't have sufficient context to follow what you're getting at without you explaining what claim you're making that is supported by the insert.
Have you read the insert? The first highlighted point may seem odd out of context, but the context is right in front of the highlighted section. It's not saying the vaccine is ineffective, it's saying it is for immunisation in people who currently do not have the flu. The lack of studies mentioned is in relation to its effectiveness in people who take the vaccine whilst already being infected with the flu.
Highlighting the lack of proven effectiveness in children is odd too, since the very same insert states it is not for use in under 18s. It makes perfect sense it hasn't been tested on children.
The Mercury part doesn't even say anything negative, simply that it is an ingredient. There are many things that we know are poisonous in some contexts/quantities, whilst being harmless in others.
Im not sure if you're being disengenious on purpose, or if you simply lack the reading comprehension.