Re: You dare to question the gods of scientism?
- --- In email@example.com, thevirtualgreek <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Ruby Honey"Leave it to you to of course "go there" when told not to, provide a link -- how long did it take you to dig this
> <rubyhoney97402@y...> wrote:
> > > Well, I'm just assuming it's difficult for art critics to keep a
> > > straight face while looking at some of the stuff that passes for
> > > I'm willing to stand corrected if that's not the case. ;-)
> > >
> > > ~~Paul
> > do everyone a favor and don't even go there. You enough on your
> hands what with being a shill for JREF and
> > other debunking organziations.
> Okay, I'll operate under the assumption that all modern art is really
> good stuff.
> ~~ Paul
out? -- and say something stupid like "Okay, I'll operate under the assumption that all modern art is really
> good stuff." ....WHAT is your point? Not that I care. Please, don't answer that. (but of course you will anyway)
- --- In email@example.com, "raptor_omicron"
> "Careful. You aren't proving that it is impossible for there to bea
> pink unicorn in my basement, logically speaking. You're onlyBut no one makes claims like this. They say "there are pink unicorns"
> 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.
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 proofis
> on the claimant."Please don't take what I say out of context. I explained who has the
> If no reasonable person says that, then why did you say it a few
> posts ago?
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 ofAgreed, but there is never total lack of evidence. If there was total
> 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.
lack of evidence for a phenomenon, you wouldn't know about it.