I’m in agreement with you. None of this passes muster. I just meant “they” in the Reddit hive mind sense. If they think it’s been debunked, you have to come up with another vector of getting the point across. Kind of like how we all know that both parties are the same (in the Uniparty sense) but if you say that to someone on social media, they get triggered and comeback with the predictable “both parties are not the same” + copypasta. I would expect Koch’s postulates to turn on the lightbulb for more people but sadly that just isn’t the case.
Tell them they will have to prove Koch's Postulates are irrelvant, and they have to have a better method of identifying if something is harmful. They can't, because it perfectly explains how to identify something that is harmful.
I would expect Koch’s postulates to turn on the lightbulb for more people but sadly that just isn’t the case.
Right. Though I am assuming they actually KNOW what KP's are, but in reality they likely don't. They probably read an unsubstantiated claim that "it was debunked" and they just regurgitate without even know what it even means.
Did you ask them if they even know what Koch's Postulates are?
If so, WHICH STEP in the process do they think is not valid?
I’m in agreement with you. None of this passes muster. I just meant “they” in the Reddit hive mind sense. If they think it’s been debunked, you have to come up with another vector of getting the point across. Kind of like how we all know that both parties are the same (in the Uniparty sense) but if you say that to someone on social media, they get triggered and comeback with the predictable “both parties are not the same” + copypasta. I would expect Koch’s postulates to turn on the lightbulb for more people but sadly that just isn’t the case.
"It was debunked" is just a claim.
"No it wasn't" is a claim that is just as valid.
Tell them they will have to prove Koch's Postulates are irrelvant, and they have to have a better method of identifying if something is harmful. They can't, because it perfectly explains how to identify something that is harmful.
Right. Though I am assuming they actually KNOW what KP's are, but in reality they likely don't. They probably read an unsubstantiated claim that "it was debunked" and they just regurgitate without even know what it even means.
Did you ask them if they even know what Koch's Postulates are?
If so, WHICH STEP in the process do they think is not valid?
I doubt they have any real answers.