ChrisJGQ

A tactic I've often seen when debating is relying on future evidence. The opponent will claim that while he doesn't currently have enough information to fully support his theory/argument in some aspect, he fully believes that eventually, the evidence he requires will be uncovered.
To me, this is admitting that the other viewpoint is better supported, but that he believes his point for some other reason than logic alone. The only way to formulate a reasonable opinion on something is to weigh the facts at hand.
Using this line of reasoning, I could make a case (equally weak) that the movie "The Matrix" was infact non fiction, and we simply don't have the evidence to realize it yet.
So why, oh why, is this such a common approach?

echidna

Yes, as such it reflects a form of faith.

Daydreamer

I think you may be straw man-ing the arguement slightly, as there are some cases where disallowing such arguments would be a violation of the 'Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence' rule - a creationist harping on the the 'gap' between H. Habilis and H. Erectus for example. On the whole, however, I agree with you.

[ July 18, 2002: Message edited by: Daydreamer ]</p>

Doubting Didymus

That argument is often used against claims of 'mystery'. For example, there are some 'gaps' in the fossil record that creationists like to point and shout at. They say 'this fossil will NEVER be found!' We say 'we are confident that the fossil record will eventually yield this information', we say this because that is what has always happened in the past, be it dinosaur/bird, lizard/mammal or ape/human. It is because of past experiences that we are generally confident about one day finding out certain things.

I dont agree at all that this is admitting that the other viewpoint is better supported. Usually the other veiwpoint is simply 'science will never find out X'. It is usually not substantiated at all, and hence is an even bigger assumption.

So its not 'often' that this happens, just when certain claims are sagely made that X or Y will never be solved. Human knowledge has such a good track record for solving things that it makes more sense to be confident that we will one day know X than it does to be confident that we will never ever know X.

echidna

Yes again. Rephrasing, it’s about degrees of faith. To continue the age-old example, faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, is as close to fact as one can get.

Calling it faith may be true in a sense, however realistically it’s a predictable fact. Maybe that’s another reason I keep out of EC(well, that & my biological and biblical illiteracy).

But at the same time, some will claim future proofs as evidence, without precedents to support.

ChrisJGQ

In the case you mention, there is 'evidence' (so to speak) to support the idea that more fossils will be discovered. It's probable. However, I meant assuming that evidence would be discovered, when there is little reason to suspect it would be discovered, unless their theory was correct.