but there's no such evidence to the contrary either...and now we're back to square one
(,
Mon 24 May 2010, 12:36,
archived)
But the point is that there's no need for there to be evidence to the contrary.I don't need to produce evidence that there's no teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars; I don't need to be able to produce evidence of the absence of pixies from my back yard.
If you want to entertain the possibility of a thing's existence, then the burden of proof lies on you.
(Consider an analogy with a courtroom: it isn't that the prosecution has to demonstrate guilt and the defence has to demonstrate innocence - rather, all the defence has to do is show that the case hasn't been made. Something similar applies here.)
(If you want to entertain the possibility of a thing's existence, then the burden of proof lies on you.
(Consider an analogy with a courtroom: it isn't that the prosecution has to demonstrate guilt and the defence has to demonstrate innocence - rather, all the defence has to do is show that the case hasn't been made. Something similar applies here.)
Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Mon 24 May 2010, 12:41,
archived)
Entertaining the possibility and belief are two very different things.Entertaining the possibilty is something every scientist must be able to do in order to progress.
(
Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob,
Mon 24 May 2010, 12:59,
archived)
But there're still some claims and sets of claims that don't merit being entertained.So I tend to agree with you - but there has to be a plausibility criterion. A scientist at CERN who entertained the possibility that mass arises because of a fight between red and blue pixies would be a strange creature indeed, just because there's no reason even to entertain the (merely logical) possibility.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Mon 24 May 2010, 13:11,
archived)
If he said red or blue quarks, it would be fine though, right?We come down once again to a matter of taste. And as you know, everyone except me has awful taste.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob,
Mon 24 May 2010, 13:14,
archived)
Well, provided he has independent evidence for the existence of quarks,can provide testable predictions, and so on, he can call them what the hell he likes. But that's not the same as picking any old toss from the back of his mind and insisting that we take the possibility seriously.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Mon 24 May 2010, 13:18,
archived)
surely if you want to believe something, then you canthere is no burden of anything on anyone until you start trying to get others to believe?
(
doog Don't read this.,
Mon 24 May 2010, 13:03,
archived)
Nope.In my more belligerent moods, I think that there's a duty to avoid false beliefs; but even in my more concessive moods, I'd deny that there's a right to hold false ones. And this means that I think we ought to be prepared to ditch any and all our current beliefs if the evidence and arguments head that way.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Mon 24 May 2010, 13:08,
archived)