--- In email@example.com
> "Careful. You aren't proving that it is impossible for there to be
> pink unicorn in my basement, logically speaking. You're only
> demonstrating empirically that there is no pink unicorn there now."
> Yes but the claim implies that there is a pink unicorn in the
> basement AND IT REMAINS THERE.
But no one makes claims like this. They say "there are pink unicorns"
or "there are transdimensional pink unicorns." Such claims are
unfalsifiable. In fact, paranormal researchers studiously avoid
making narrow-scope claims like yours, because then one CAN falsify
them. For example, no one would claim that Uri Geller can bend spoons
in my bedroom on Tuesdays, because then I can set up a simple test.
> "First of all, no reasonable person says that the burden of proof
> on the claimant."
> If no reasonable person says that, then why did you say it a few
> posts ago?
Please don't take what I say out of context. I explained who has the
burden of proof: those who have the ability to produce evidence one
way or the other. If you have a specific claim to discuss, let's do
that, because talking about the general case makes it too easy to
distort each other's statements. For which claim did I lay the burden
of proof on the claimant?
> "Indeed, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. However, lack of
> evidence one way or the other does not leave the probability at
> 50/50. If you want to calculate a probability, you have a large and
> squirrely task ahead of you that involves many related fields of
> TOTAL lack of evidence either way would leave the probability at
> 50/50. Anything that would change this probability is evidence.
Agreed, but there is never total lack of evidence. If there was total
lack of evidence for a phenomenon, you wouldn't know about it.