Bad Argument: Russell's Teapot / Flipping Burden of Proof / Unfalsifiability

Sometimes when you argue with someone else, your opponent, instead of answering with evidence that support their position, they answer with worthless-isms like "It's obvious / well-known", "they said...", "Google it", and so on, sometimes with implied or outright stated "don't be lazy". 

Don't fall for this bad argument. They want you to disprove them, when it's actually their turn to prove their own position. 

During an debate / argument, each side states their position on the question, and each side is supposed to show evidence that supports their own side. If one side answers with worthless-isms, it means one of two things:

A. they don't HAVE any evidence, and they want YOU to prove THEIR side, which is NOT YOUR JOB. They are supposed to support their side, and they're trying to flip "burden of proof". 

B. they used an unfalsifiable argument (whether intentionally or not), which makes their argument an assertion, but there is no evidence, because it's impossible to obtain. 

One such example is known as "Russell's Teapot". First coined by Bertrand Russell, he basically postulated that there is a teapot in an eliptical orbit. You can't see it, because it's too small. And since you can't prove it doesn't exist, it therefore exists. Right? 

Wrong. The person making the assertion / argument has the burder of proof. If they made an unfalsifiable assertion, they've argued themselves into a corner. Nobody would be expected to believe something that cannot be proven. 

Russell used this assertion to argue against religion, because most religions presume the existence of God. But a lot of bad arguments started with a presumption, and that's not evidence. 

This sort of argument are often seen in cults and cult-like organizations, such as MLMs and scam cults (Ponzi schemes and pyramid schemes that had yet to collapse), where the victims, for various reasons, WANTED to believe in the scam and thus invent unfalsifiable assertions and instead of proving their own side, they want to critics to DISPROVE their unfalsifiable assertions (which is of course, a paradox in itself). 

So watch out when it's used against you. Call them out, and refuse to play their game. Reveal their bad argument. Watch them sputter. 

Antivax COVIDiocy: How Antivaxxers Argue By Bullshitting with Disinformation

The way antivaxxers argue is by flooding you with disinformation trying to convince you are wrong or you don't know what you're talking about. Don't be fooled. Here's my recent engagement with one such. 

I was replying to The Real Truther who was commenting on some idiotic tweet by Daniel Kotzin about how to get out of the pandemic is to surrender and refuse vaccines. I said it will flood the hospitals like the earliest days of COVID where Wuhan, China ended up a ghost city. 

Then comes Farmer J who claimed natural immunity will be fine, and vaccines are too stupid to handle variants. Which is simply not true, at least not completely true. (Pfizer said 2 shots + booster will handle Omicron, while Moderna said they need another shot)  So I clapped back with facts and logic. 

Farmer J isn't receptive to the truth though, as he replied with irrelevant mentions and derision, continuing to claim "natural immunity" is superior to vaccines. He also claimed some wild time-traveling stuff about Moderna had worked on Omicron for MONTHS when it was discovered in late November (only a few weeks ago)  I replied with facts and citation vaccine immunity is STRONGER than disease-derived immunity. Actual studies say so. 

His reply was somewhat surprising... He claims the study was discredited. Not that he produced any evidence of such. But he goofed, as he just revealed that he is not backed by any facts. He actually used debunked misinformation... that PCR test was ending. It's not. So I called him out on it with proof. 

He had not continued any response to this tweet chain in the past 24 hours. 

From what I can tell, he seems to reside north of the border. Guess he got tired of commenting on snow and such so he replied to stuff he didn't like with lies, backed by even more lies, and just act haughty "lol" every tweet pretending to know more than he does. 

He had used multiple tactics of top bullshitters. He acted arrogantly confident, pointed at his supposed successes ("my natural immunity"), and claimed esoteric knowledge ("this one is mocked") , hoping we wouldn't challenge him. 

It's basically one antivax talking point after another. And if you are not versed in this sort of tactics, and/or be quick on Google and/or understand science, you may be snookered by all that disinformation. 

Don't be a COVIDiot and believe antivaxxer bullshit.