>>16662752
>You’re trying to frame this as if I just “disagree” with the standards of virology - like it’s a matter of taste or preference.
You are and it is.

>But the scientific method isn’t subjective.
Yeah it is.
The standards for what constitutes proof or good experimental design are very much subjective. As experiment you like, I might consider insufficient and vice versa. It is largely a mattet of opinion.

>It’s based on universal principles: isolate the variable, control the conditions, test the hypothesis, and allow for falsification.
What this means in the context of your experiment is however completely subjective and arbitrary. What is the variable? What are the condition, what constitutes as valid test of your hypothesis and so on.

>Whether an experiment follows that method isn’t up for debate, it can be objectively evaluated.
It is very much up for debate, because reality is messy and can't easily be modeled.

>Either the variable is isolated or it’s not.
Except: what counts as "the variable is isolated" and what doesn't? It's arbitrary and purely based on consensus. It's very much a matter of opinion. After all, we can very easily model the impact of unisolable variabes using statistical techniques, for example. Does that count? It's a matter of debate.

>Either proper controls were used or they weren’t.
What are proper controls? Which controls are proper, which aren't? This is also a matter of debate.

>This isn’t me “not liking” virology,
Yeah it is. You categorically reject all countervidence and only focus on a small subset of what "virology" is and disregard any evidence that isn't explicitly medical in nature. You also seem to be unaware of the entirety of molecular biology and biotechnology, making me wonder why you even feel qualified to discuss what is and isn't in line with the scientific method, when it is clear that you don't even understand what you are arguing about.