Sendraks wrote:thoughts about yaks...

Ruminating about ruminants?

MrFungus420 wrote:If those tests fail, those three claims are disproven.

Something isn't dis-proven because a few tests fail.

Thorham wrote:

MrFungus420 wrote:If those tests fail, those three claims are disproven.

Something isn't dis-proven because a few tests fail.

You want permission to go on believing something (in the woo department) because it hasn't been disproven? Be my guest. Better you should be interested in the evidence. Too bad there isn't any, or you'd be talking about that instead of wibbling about what's necessary to disprove a conjecture that only evidence can support.

Cito di Pense wrote:You want permission to go on believing something (in the woo department) because it hasn't been disproven?

Where did I say I believe in these things?

Cito di Pense wrote:Better you should be interested in the evidence.

The problem with evidence is that you have to be able to actually get to it somehow. A good example is sub-atomic particles. A thousand years ago they existed (obviously), but was there any evidence available to us at that time? No, because we lacked the knowledge to get the evidence.

All I was pointing out is that a lack of evidence doesn't prove anything.

Thorham wrote:All I was pointing out is that a lack of evidence doesn't prove anything.

Yes.
No evidence = reincarnation not possible.
That is the position until such time as the evidence shows otherwise.

Sendraks wrote:No evidence = reincarnation not possible.

Lack of evidence doesn't make something is impossible.

Thorham wrote:

Sendraks wrote:No evidence = reincarnation not possible.

Lack of evidence doesn't make something is impossible.

It is until someone shows it isn't. I think we all accept that absence of evidence, isn't evidence of absence, but in the case of extraordinary claims, some extraordinary evidence is required, not personal experience.

Thorham wrote:Lack of evidence doesn't make something is impossible.

There is a lack of evidence that the sun will rise in the west tomorrow.

Sendraks I can't resist, "until the sun rises in the west, and sets in the east..."

Agrippina wrote:It is until someone shows it isn't. I think we all accept that absence of evidence, isn't evidence of absence, but in the case of extraordinary claims, some extraordinary evidence is required, not personal experience.

Evidence isn't required for something to exist. Lack of evidence makes something unknown, not impossible. Which is why I have nothing to say about things like reincarnation, omnipotent beings, etc, etc. I'm not going to say things are impossible just because there's no evidence for them. It makes no sense.

Sendraks wrote:There is a lack of evidence that the sun will rise in the west tomorrow.

Of course, because the sun doesn't rise, the earth rotates round it's axis

Thorham wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:Better you should be interested in the evidence.

The problem with evidence is that you have to be able to actually get to it somehow. A good example is sub-atomic particles. A thousand years ago they existed (obviously), but was there any evidence available to us at that time? No, because we lacked the knowledge to get the evidence.

All I was pointing out is that a lack of evidence doesn't prove anything.

I think this is your point... Because there is a lack of evidence today doesn't mean that this will always be the case.

Understand that when someone makes a claim that requires verification, we use the knowledge and evidence on hand. The more extra ordinary the claim the more extra ordinary the evidence that is needed. Having evidence can verify the validity of a claim or even falsify a claim. A lack of evidence is significant because that means a claim can not be verified.

Without evidence what do you do? In a nutshell....
In the case of science, one creates a hypothesis and supports it with the evidence that is available, makes a prediction about the path(s) that would verify the hypothesis, states how the hypothesis can be falsified and sets out to find evidence for it.

In the case of woo-ish people, they make outrageous claims,create stories around them and say that the evidence is beyond science's reach. How convenient.

Thorham wrote:Of course, because the sun doesn't rise, the earth rotates round it's axis

There isn't any evidence that sun revolves around the earth.

Thorham wrote:

Agrippina wrote:It is until someone shows it isn't. I think we all accept that absence of evidence, isn't evidence of absence, but in the case of extraordinary claims, some extraordinary evidence is required, not personal experience.

Evidence isn't required for something to exist. Lack of evidence makes something unknown, not impossible. Which is why I have nothing to say about things like reincarnation, omnipotent beings, etc, etc. I'm not going to say things are impossible just because there's no evidence for them. It makes no sense.

Of course it makes sense. Just look at the bizarre claims made by religion.

Let's put it another way.

Reincarnation is not considered to be possible on the basis of current evidence.

Thorham wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:You want permission to go on believing something (in the woo department) because it hasn't been disproven?

Where did I say I believe in these things?

You didn't, but then, what's your interest in the topic, on the side of defending the possibility of ideas that haven't been disproven? What's your point in saying it? Simple contrarianism?

Sendraks wrote:Let's put it another way.

Reincarnation is not considered to be possible on the basis of current evidence.

What makes you think it's a notion that can be addressed by evidence? What if it is a work of pure imagination? Doesn't that seem more likely in cases of ideas that are basically incoherent and on top of that, obvious wishful thinking?

ElDiablo wrote:[
Understand that when someone makes a claim that requires verification, we use the knowledge and evidence on hand.

When the concept is incoherent on the face of it, and furthermore, obvious result of wishful thinking, we dismiss it.

We might pussyfoot around a bit before doing that, because we might not want to hurt the feelings of what is probably just another confused ground ape. But the fucking idea is nonsense. Sorry to anyone if that hurts.

Cito di Pense wrote:

ElDiablo wrote:[
Understand that when someone makes a claim that requires verification, we use the knowledge and evidence on hand.

When the concept is incoherent on the face of it, and furthermore, obvious result of wishful thinking, we dismiss it.

We might pussyfoot around a bit before doing that, because we might not want to hurt the feelings of what is probably just another confused ground ape. But the fucking idea is nonsense. Sorry to anyone if that hurts.

I am giving Thorham the benefit of the doubt that he is interested in a discussion.

Cito di Pense wrote:
What makes you think it's a notion that can be addressed by evidence?

I don't.

I'm prepared to go out on a limb and say there will never be any evidence that shows reincarnation is possible.

Cito di Pense wrote: What if it is a work of pure imagination?

Somebody had to do it...