Most people don't know how to falsify or verify hypotheses

"The thing about the flat earth [theory] is that it is the hypothesis is formally falsifiable even by the individual and the alternative hypotheses is formally verifiable with the best methods we have with the highest confidence we can have. Now one thing that I would still say is interesting is I know many people who refer to flat earthers as the monicker of maximum stupidity who [themselves] cannot do that Copernican proof. So they take as an article of faith that the earth is round, but they actually don’t know how to derive it, have never tried, and so then they also move to taking as an article of faith similar things that don’t have the same basis. So, does someone even understand what falsifiable and verifiable mean? Does someone have a basis for calibrating their confidence margin? Because if I start to talk about the moon landing or then I go a little bit further and talk about long-term autoimmune effects or epigenetic drift or whatever that come from a vaccine schedule of 72 vaccines together, is the standard narrative falsifiable or verifiable? Is the alternate narrative falsifiable in the way flat is? No! So the fact that we put flat earth and anti-vac in the same category is a intellectually dishonest bad thing to do, but the fact [is] that most people don’t even know how to verify or falsify and so like with the lab hypothesis. When you come to 90 percent I’m guessing you have a process for that. What I would say is I haven’t studied it enough to put a percentage because I don’t have enough Bayesian priors to actually come up with a mathematical number and what I would say is I consider the idea of it coming from a lab and some king of dual function gain gate of function research to be very plausible… and I have seen nothing that falsifies that, and the few attempts that I saw early [on] to falsify it were theoretically invalid to me. Now, to be able to go from plausible to a probability number I would need to apply different epistemic tools than I have already applied..."

-Daniel Schmachtenberger

Link to the portion of the conversation here transcribed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPJug0s2u4w&t=9048s