That's how science works, mainstream or not - it uses evidence to prove hypotheses wrong. It's systematic.they will just keep arguing that ScIeNcE ProVeS YoU WrOnG and blah blah blah. It's extremely annoying. If
I don't know how to progress a discussion when there doesn't believe there is such a thing as objective reality.Personally I hate debating with people who get all butt hurt when something that opposes mainstream science is brought up.
If Peat didn't learn from published science, including quite a lot of mainstream ideas, none of us would likely be here. AFAIK, he questions some mainstream ideas, but he hasn't thrown out all of anatomy, physiology, chemistry, etc or the idea that there is an objective reality to study.If we all believed mainstream science we wouldn't be on this forum.
If we take a reactive position of automatically rejecting any idea that shows up in mainstream science (or media), we'd be throwing out most of human knowledge, to our detriment. That doesn't mean it's all correct, or that we shouldn't challenge ideas when there is evidence, as Peat and others do. But just rejecting ideas because they are in the mainstream leads nowhere good. All scientists, if they are doing their job, have the potential to change the mainstream view of reality.