Editing Openai/680845c9-c944-8012-bafb-fa1bab1e9277 (section)

=== User: I shared the link to this conversation so that others could benifit from seeing the truth regarding viruses and how the… ===
I shared the link to this conversation so that others could benifit from seeing the truth regarding viruses and how they have been proven to exist and cause diseases for educational purposes.

However, here is another example of a person restricting the framework to elicit an outcome that supports their bias. They took the conversation and changed the outcome by restricting the framework of reference to such a degree that no science would work in order to prove viruses don't exist. for the purpose of discrediting the science I shared. Claiming that first principles had not been met in any of virology science because the foundations of virology was built on circular reasoning.

Insisting you apply a hyper-strict, absolutist interpretation of the first principles makes the conversation untenable, because, if we apply those strict interpretations of first principles we could also say bacteria has never met the bar, because it has also never been purified in isolation, it is grown in agar.

In fact, this hyper-strict, absolutist interpretation means that all science involving living things is flawed because all living things need the contamination of their environment to survive.

I think this sort of behaviour is very disingenuous.

What would be your reply, now that you are aware of the intent of the person asking the questions about first principles?

https://chatgpt.com/share/67f7fc67-1ce0-8004-a421-5634dbed2f54