Hey,
Thank you again Arcanus, for another interesting point. I too think it is a very good analogy of the 'null' principle you are discussing. I also like your clarity on properties of analogies, as a bit of a poet I am a sucker for intelligent use of literary tools. The presumption of innocence is kind of a side-track though? If I am seeing it right the most important part is about the null hypotheses and alternate hypotheses, their relationship, and their lack of 'scientific verifiability'. That the 'debate' over Smith's 'innocence' is not a yes/no situation, but admittedly only our best approximation with room for error.
I like what this says about the god argument. It seems again you have put something I tried to express and failed to have clarity in a very clear light. I did and do not agree that the burden of proof is automatically on theists. I do think that to make a claim and make no attempt to show it as true or rational is a little bit shallow. That in mind, I think that stating there is no god is a claim, just as dis-belief takes a leap of faith. I think the burden of proof, for what little it is worth, is on either all of us, or none of us.
May be that is what LEDO said? I also agree with you LEDO, that the argument about god exists in the realm of theory, idea, and 'don't have all of the information yet'. That this argument can't be held to strict 'scientific' standards. That there is no 'evidence' we can share, as it is all interpreted differently. Sometimes we interpret into opposites. Like EvF's sig, I think I get something completely different from it than he means...
Anyways,
Thank you for sharing that Arcanus, it was a pleasure to read.
The,
-Pip
Thank you again Arcanus, for another interesting point. I too think it is a very good analogy of the 'null' principle you are discussing. I also like your clarity on properties of analogies, as a bit of a poet I am a sucker for intelligent use of literary tools. The presumption of innocence is kind of a side-track though? If I am seeing it right the most important part is about the null hypotheses and alternate hypotheses, their relationship, and their lack of 'scientific verifiability'. That the 'debate' over Smith's 'innocence' is not a yes/no situation, but admittedly only our best approximation with room for error.
I like what this says about the god argument. It seems again you have put something I tried to express and failed to have clarity in a very clear light. I did and do not agree that the burden of proof is automatically on theists. I do think that to make a claim and make no attempt to show it as true or rational is a little bit shallow. That in mind, I think that stating there is no god is a claim, just as dis-belief takes a leap of faith. I think the burden of proof, for what little it is worth, is on either all of us, or none of us.
May be that is what LEDO said? I also agree with you LEDO, that the argument about god exists in the realm of theory, idea, and 'don't have all of the information yet'. That this argument can't be held to strict 'scientific' standards. That there is no 'evidence' we can share, as it is all interpreted differently. Sometimes we interpret into opposites. Like EvF's sig, I think I get something completely different from it than he means...
Anyways,
Thank you for sharing that Arcanus, it was a pleasure to read.
The,
-Pip
