(October 13, 2015 at 12:10 pm)jenny1972 Wrote: if they cant meet it then why should they bother with it at all ? thats illogical ...
so theyre confusing the inability to meet the burden of proof with the idea they should continue to bother trying to meet it ? thats an interesting theory.
No it's completely logical if you actually value the burden of proof like any rational person should. I am not saying to continue bothering to try meeting it when they can't, I am saying when they can't then that means their idea is not worth bothering with. That's the whole POINT with the burden of proof - it filters out all the bullshit claims that aren't worth bothering with. It's not "an interesting theory" it's perfectly rational parsimoniousness, it's Occam's Razor - the principle of parsimony:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
You are showing complete confirmation bias... if a rational method fails to confirm what you already believe then rather than throw out the belief you throw out the rational method. That's massively irrational.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
