OK. I was thinking of this question:

Is he saying that the entire science of virology is a farce?

I take that as a big hint of Argument from Authority. Saying that "a lot of virologists" agree is only relying on their authority (as "virologists"), not discussing the substance of what they claim.

But, you are welcome to refute Cowan's (and Stefan Lanka's, and Kaufman's, and others') claim that nobody has ever proven that viruses exist. That is their fundamental position.

OK. I was thinking of this question:

Is he saying that the entire science of virology is a farce?

I take that as a big hint of Argument from Authority. Saying that "a lot of virologists" agree is only relying on their authority (as "virologists"), not discussing the substance of what they claim.

But, you are welcome to refute Cowan's (and Stefan Lanka's) claim that nobody has ever proven that viruses exist. That is their fundamental position.

The question was:

Is he saying that the entire science of virology is a farce?

I take that as a big hint of Argument from Authority. Saying that "a lot of virologists" agree is only relying on their authority (as "virologists"), not discussing the substance of what they claim.

But, you are welcome to refute Cowan's (and Stefan Lanka's) claim that nobody has ever proven that viruses exist. That is their fundamental position.