2·
2 months agoBelieving claims on the grounds that they haven’t been disproven is just bad epistemology
Well, it’s a good thing that wasn’t my position.
- 0 Posts
- 23 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: July 22nd, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
If you’re claiming my fridge has no tiny invisible pink elephants you are welcome to provide evidence.
I will make no claims on the matter and thus have to provide no evidence either way.
Edit: I think you’re confusing me for the other guy.
“There is enough evidence to be confident there aren’t structural problems” is what they’re really saying.
Bro, the graphite is not there. Everything is completely normal.
Negative claims require evidence.
Otherwise a safety engineer can go to a regulator and say “There are no structural issues with this building.” He is claiming there are no issues, he needs to back that up with evidence.
Your Jedi mind tricks won’t work on me. 😜
No, you can’t prove that something never happens or that something doesn’t exist.
Science, philosophy, and mathematics say otherwise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#Proving_a_negative
I wasn’t arguing for the existence of god.
Let me break this down:
- “There is a god.” --> Burden of proof
- “There is no god.” --> Burden of proof
- “Hey, man. I don’t know.” —> No burden of proof
that’s not how evidence and proof works.
Proof of a negative is common in science and mathematics.
No, you can’t prove that something never happens or that something doesn’t exist.
Edit: For those who are downvoting here are some sources
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#Proving_a_negative
No. A negative can be proven. It’s done all the time in science and mathematics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#Proving_a_negative
You have made the assertion, thus you have the burden of proof.
“what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence” QED
Careful, many online atheists don’t understand that they have to prove a negative. That they have to prove the assertion: “There is no god.”
The default position is that there is yet insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion.
Edit: Thank you for the downvotes, you have provided me with further evidence that online atheists don’t understand that they have to prove a negative. Your butthurt fuels me.
Focus on being trustworthy more than your performance.
I recently saw a video from Simon Sinek that helped me understand what is valued in a team member. It’s only 2 and a half minutes long, give it a watch.
most places in the country have good tap water
Except when it doesn’t.
https://www.dia.govt.nz/Government-Inquiry-into-Havelock-North-Drinking-Water
But it’s rare. This example comes from 8 years ago.
no one knows who is responsible
That’s not correct. We all know that first to smell it, dealt it.
It has to be $10 or less in my local currency (~USD$6).
That makes the list much shorter, so from there I’m usually happy with my purchase. If I end up spending 5 hours on the game then I’ve won out better than going to see a movie.
Fatboy Slim - Right Here, Right Now
the only thing stopping them …
Is that what they actually believe? Who told you what they actually believe? How many people actually believe this? Is this the primary motivation?
Have you been lied to?
people who can’t be bothered to do a minimal amount of reading to understand the world around us are usually terrible people.
Says the guy who believes in strawmen.
the first actual real, live creationist I ever met was at that job.
Wait, the fact that they were a creationist made them a terrible person? Not any actions, poor character traits, or a proselytiser.
Was it purely because they believed something that we don’t?
There will never be a poop knife, or chili soap, or any of that here
My brother in Christ, do you already forget about the no pooping meme?
Don’t leave us hanging! What are your suggestions?