I don't understand why both sides keep mentioning there not being any relevant scientific evidence. There must be heaps that would inform the debate, at least partially.
Take the most obvious thing you can think of, something that your senses confirm daily and which society has had as a self evidential truth for millennia. I dunno. Fire when wood burns is hot, something like that.
Now someone comes along and says actually, fire isn’t hot. No it is, you say, toasting a marshmallow, fire when wood burns is hot. Aha, they say, but what about ethanol? I’m not talking bout ethanol, you say, there will of course be some substances that burn below marshmallow roasting temperature but camp fires, made from wood, are hot.
What about isopropyl alcohol eh? GOTCHA!
I’m not talking about something from a lab, you twit. I’m talking about building a fire from wood. It’s hot.
Ah, they can, can you definitively prove that all wood is hot burning, where are the scientific papers? GOTCHA!
It’s that level of debate. Science doesn’t need to do extensive research to prove that shit we know is true, is true. If you want to say that shitvisnt true, YOU, my dear TRA, must bring the evidence.