> until then we all just assume that the information I'm giving is good.

Fallacy of the excluded middle. There's other alternatives to a) saying it's outright false and b) saying it's outright true. I'm saying it shouldn't be labeled "misinformation" without extensive evidence to back it up, just as you're saying it shouldn't be labeled "truth" without the same level of evidence.

Instead, it's actually possible that we could discuss the theory as if it might be true, or false, until there's sufficient evidence to rule out one or the other. It's Pelic4n's refusal to do this that I take issue with.

Ok, so misinformation may be too strong a word - really it's just unfounded, so that labeling IS wrong. I still think we need to treat it as false until we have evidence it works. I'm sure you wouldn't treat my farts as curing cancer if I made the claim unless there was proof.

Glad we agree on the essentials. There was anecdotal evidence to back up the claim, however; it's not "unfounded." While that's not enough evidence to make any real claims, it is enough evidence to have a conversation.

A conversation is a prelude to an exploration, and an exploration is a prelude to a hypothesis, which is the beginning of an experiment. An experiment is where we obtain the evidence to begin to say that it might be true, or false.

It's entirely possible to think about something and even discuss it without labeling it as either true or false - to be simply agnostic. We don't need to jump to conclusions. If we aren't jumping to conclusions, then it would be incorrect to say that we treat it as false, just as it would be incorrect to say that we treat it as true.