I had an interesting discussion with someone this weekend about nuclear fission and nuclear fusion. He has his doubts about fusion being a safe and clean energy source because it has the word “nuclear” in it. I explained that the fuel sources and waste products are totally different and the processes are totally different. One has radioactive materials, the other does not. One can have an uncontrollable chain reaction that leads to a meltdown, the other just stops if energy input ceases.
Here are some other arguments that are not scientific and are therefore not valid in a scientific discussion:
The Bible says so
Uh, no. The Bible is so incredibly not scientific. Religion is based on belief, not research using experimentation, data gathering, analysis, and so on.
This conspiracy theory website says so
You don’t know how many people I know who keep quoting conspiracy theory websites as if they’re the truth. No, they’re not. Sorry, they are so flawed in their thinking, they keep ignoring half of the information and focusing on one aspect. Give me an actual scientific paper to support your argument.
The vaccine has mercury in it, so it’s dangerous!
It may have mercury in it, but it’s in a molecular compound, not elemental mercury. It’s elemental mercury that’s dangerous, not the compound. Our body doesn’t break that down. It’s not the only chemical people say is dangerous. Another is formaldehyde. Vaccines contain less formaldehyde than a pear. In fact, our own bodies naturally have things such as formaldehyde, arsenic, and we’d die if we didn’t have other “dangerous” chemicals such as sodium or potassium.
So, what’s your favourite unscientific argument?