Ive asked lecturers in logic at the Adelaide Uni to justify the position that x doesnt exist unless there is evidence of x. No one seems able to reconcile classical logic (if there is no information on x then no conclusion can be drawn about x) with scientific and philosophical convention (if there is no information for x, x definitely doesnt exist). This seems to be a triumph of convenience over logic. I disbelieve in the giant flying spaghetti monster because I know it was invented as an example of the convention in question and separate strands of egg based extruded batter dont have any of the prerequisites to become a life-form as we know it and spaghetti becoming airborne seems to break well understood physics. Anyway... What is the rational justification for disbelief in a thing where no evidence exists about it instead of leaving the conclusion unknown until some information about the thing in question is gathered? Why is not known never the default position for an unjustified claim.
Posted on: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 11:06:36 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015