Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Veil of Fire · 07-01-2002, 05:26 PM

Rimstalker: So black holes didn't exist, in our theories anyway, until we discovered one? Neutrinos too?

Absence of evidence is only used as reason to reject a theory if it's not popularly scientific-sounding.

Skid · 07-01-2002, 06:41 PM

Kally - do you get royalties for this:

If not, you should!!

<a href="http://www.cafepress.com/cp/store/store.aspx?storeid=bible12" target="_blank">God Is Santa Claus For Adults Products </a>

Tercel · 07-01-2002, 06:57 PM

Hey Kelly, I can accept that you might be fairly predudiced against religion, and think it silly because the people such as your mother do not use their brain when it comes to religion.
But as a believer who takes reason and intelligence very seriously in considering my beliefs, I am inclined to be somewhat insulted by your gross generalisations.

Mad Kally · 07-01-2002, 07:49 PM

Does this mean you don't believe I'm the Tooth Fairy?

The Other Michael · 07-01-2002, 08:05 PM

Tercel,

can you PROVE Kally isn't the Tooth Fairy?

I hear she's in real tight with the IPU too, so you'd better watch your step.

cheers,
Michael

GunnerJ · 07-02-2002, 05:25 AM

Quote:

Rimstalker: So black holes didn't exist, in our theories anyway, until we discovered one? Neutrinos too?

A lovely straw man of my position. I will repeat myself: "The non-existance of a propsed entity is logically assumed until there is some evidence of its existance."

This statement makes no claims about what actually does exist, it only claims what we can rationally assume does.

Thus, without any reason for assuming the existance of black holes, we ought not assume it. Never mind that the lack of evidence for a black hole doesn't disporve its existance. Without any direct or indirect evidence of its existance, it has no bearing on me.

Quote:

Absence of evidence is only used as reason to reject a theory if it's not popularly scientific-sounding.

Sure, Veil. There's a big conspiracy going around to prevent theories without evidence from being accepted as scientifically valid. It's called logic.

BTW, I like how you wiggled out of your criticism of Occam's Razor without a word. Was I wrong, and can you show me so, or do you just not want to admit your error?

[ July 02, 2002: Message edited by: Rimstalker ]</p>

Tercel · 07-02-2002, 06:34 PM

I don't believe Kally is the Tooth Fairy. In fact, I hold the belief that Kally is positively not the tooth fairy.
I can't prove it though.

Was there a point to this?

[ July 02, 2002: Message edited by: Tercel ]</p>

Veil of Fire · 07-02-2002, 06:39 PM

Quote:

There's a big conspiracy going around to prevent theories without evidence from being accepted as scientifically valid. It's called logic.

Two words:

String Theory

GunnerJ · 07-03-2002, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Two words:

String Theory

Two words are just words. They have no meaning without a context. What are you trying to get at?

Oh, and should I take your prompt silence on my points on the burden of proof as a concession the way I took your silence on Occam's razor?

guyver2199 · 07-03-2002, 05:17 AM

i think that he was pointing out that string theory seems counter to common sense, that is common with smaller particles though, about that refusal to accept a fact until there is evidence for it, look at some epistemology, how we know what we know, more importantly, the basis of our understanding the world. you may realize that we are building our scientific castle on a basis of nothing. the reason we trust our senses is because we dont have anything else to use and thay seem to work, verifiable only by... our SENSES!. i dont disagree with you on that particular point but be awarw that such allowances have been made already

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-01-2002, 05:26 PM	#11
Veil of Fire Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: South Carolina Posts: 451	Rimstalker: So black holes didn't exist, in our theories anyway, until we discovered one? Neutrinos too? Absence of evidence is only used as reason to reject a theory if it's not popularly scientific-sounding.

07-01-2002, 06:41 PM	#12
Skid Regular Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Michigan Posts: 191	Kally - do you get royalties for this: If not, you should!! <a href="http://www.cafepress.com/cp/store/store.aspx?storeid=bible12" target="_blank">God Is Santa Claus For Adults Products </a>

07-01-2002, 06:57 PM	#13
Tercel Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: New Zealand Posts: 1,315	Hey Kelly, I can accept that you might be fairly predudiced against religion, and think it silly because the people such as your mother do not use their brain when it comes to religion. But as a believer who takes reason and intelligence very seriously in considering my beliefs, I am inclined to be somewhat insulted by your gross generalisations.

07-01-2002, 07:49 PM	#14
Mad Kally Banned Join Date: May 2001 Location: LALA Land in California Posts: 3,764	Does this mean you don't believe I'm the Tooth Fairy?

07-01-2002, 08:05 PM	#15
The Other Michael Honorary Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: In the fog of San Francisco Posts: 12,631	Tercel, can you PROVE Kally isn't the Tooth Fairy? I hear she's in real tight with the IPU too, so you'd better watch your step. cheers, Michael

07-02-2002, 06:34 PM	#17
Tercel Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: New Zealand Posts: 1,315	I don't believe Kally is the Tooth Fairy. In fact, I hold the belief that Kally is positively not the tooth fairy. I can't prove it though. Was there a point to this? [ July 02, 2002: Message edited by: Tercel ]</p>

07-03-2002, 05:17 AM	#20
guyver2199 Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: school Posts: 11	i think that he was pointing out that string theory seems counter to common sense, that is common with smaller particles though, about that refusal to accept a fact until there is evidence for it, look at some epistemology, how we know what we know, more importantly, the basis of our understanding the world. you may realize that we are building our scientific castle on a basis of nothing. the reason we trust our senses is because we dont have anything else to use and thay seem to work, verifiable only by... our SENSES!. i dont disagree with you on that particular point but be awarw that such allowances have been made already

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.