Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Separate oven and hob on one circuit?
- Thread starter jimbo5050
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Indeed. I wonder where BAS stands in relation to 'extra-terrestrial life'?
Kind Regards, John
You could also try applying logic.
That's something I always try to do, both professionally and in general - but you would have to be a bit more specific for me to understand what point you are making.
... and don't forget that this all started because of the way in which BAS responded to a joke!
Kind Regards, John
Sponsored Links
I didn't want to get into it, but -
It is logical to deduce that there might be extra-terrestrial life. It is not logical to do the other thing.
It is logical to deduce that there might be extra-terrestrial life. It is not logical to do the other thing.
As I've already said, I don't want to get into it (here) either. Suffice it to say that I think one has to be careful in deciding what is 'logical', since that is dependent upon on current knowledge and understanding.
To mention just one of countless examples, one doesn't have to go back very far in time at all to the days that virtually everyone (including all the relevant 'experts') did not consider it to be 'logical' to believe (on the basis of what was then known and understood) that there could possibly be any life in the outer solar system - but we are now actively looking for it. ... and if you go back a bit further (a century or so), there was certainly a time when any scientist would have told you that it was 'totally illogical' to suggest that matter could ever be destroyed (turned into something else).
Kind Regards, John
It appears that you have a defect.
I stand here.
In relation to any extra-terrestrial life I stand some considerable distance from it.
Indeed.
And almost immediately it continued with people accusing me of arguing because I provided a different joke.
Well, if that is the case you should not have started "it", should you.
Indeed.
Please go back by any amount of time you choose and cite examples where, in the absence of any evidence at the time for "the existence of all sorts of things which the passage of time has clearly demonstrated do exist", people were claiming that all those sorts of things did exist.
And the point of that would be what, exactly, when those groups are populated by people who think that if Person A makes a claim of the existence of something, say, for example, that there are huge herds of flying unicorns living in the Arctic, then if Person B objects that there is not a scrap of evidence of them, that it is valid for B to be challenged to produce evidence that they do not exist?
That isn't "philosophy" - it is a total denial of scientific method and evidence based policy.
You are making, without any justification at all, totally incorrect assumptions about what I think and what many of the people I discuss my thoughts with also think. I am far far closer to your views than you seem to think, the main difference seemingly being that we have different views about 'scientific method' ...
... the many decades of my entire adult life to date have been dominated by 'scientific method', and that is the very reason that I will never accept (let alone 'assert') anything, positive or negative, as an 'absolute certainty' without adequate evidence - and, as stillp has said, the absence of evidence for something does not constitute evidence for the opposite/converse.
Kind Regards, John
Stillp and you are saying that I need to produce evidence that something does not exist.
Stillp and you are saying that if I were to deny the existence of huge herds of flying unicorns living in the Arctic, something which you had claimed existed despite there being no evidence of them, that I should be challenged to produce evidence that they do not exist.
Stillp and you are saying that if I were to deny the existence of huge herds of flying unicorns living in the Arctic, something which you had claimed existed despite there being no evidence of them, that I should be challenged to produce evidence that they do not exist.
Indeed, but only if you want to assert that it is 'absolutely certain' that the something does not exist.
I can't speak for stillp, but I personally would have no problem if, because the the absence of evidence (in either direction), probably plus some other considerations, you said that you considered it "incredibly unlikely" (or even stronger words, if you wish) that something exists. It's only when, in that situation, you go over the line and assert that "it does not exist" that I think you have deviated from 'scientific method' (or the more general philosophical equivalent).
Kind Regards, John
OK, fine.
You assert that there are huge herds of flying unicorns living in the Arctic, I'll say "no there are not" instead of "I think that incredibly unlikely", and then you challenge me to provide evidence of their non-existence.
And meanwhile in the real world the rest of us can go about our lives with the absolute certainty that there are no huge herds of flying unicorns living in the Arctic.
You assert that there are huge herds of flying unicorns living in the Arctic, I'll say "no there are not" instead of "I think that incredibly unlikely", and then you challenge me to provide evidence of their non-existence.
And meanwhile in the real world the rest of us can go about our lives with the absolute certainty that there are no huge herds of flying unicorns living in the Arctic.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
