@Jonn
There's a problem with the "two sides" trope that induces immediate distrust in people who prefer facts to rhetoric.
It's a useful principle to apply when reviewing something. In that context it helps get the complete picture, and can help tighten up your argument.
But it's used a lot, not least in the domain that's the focus for this discussion, to dishonestly weaken an opponents argument by implying what @Ronald Zeeman explained above - the illusion that both sides have the same weight.
That rationale would have us teaching epicycles as a potentially valid explanation for planetary motion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle
We best be careful of all-or-nothing things, though. Grey areas exist. (Black and White thinking reference)
And this is also because this comparison is not exactly accurate. When you have two grand compounds of studies and views that involve people abiding by them by preference, which might also each contain a lot of lies, it's not the same as with two theories of the universal laws which are pretty tight cut to the truth. It's either one or another.
Whilst with a collection of research to be attributed to each side, as well as speech that is meant to influence and grant some bigger people success, it's quite different.
A scientific proposition might still have parts of it which are true as well, well researched, even if altogether it's a false theory.
Last edited: