Well the fact that you haven't looked at the presented evidence for something as absurd as reincarnation, (so far believed to be absurd by people such as me anyway) that of course doesn't mean there can't be any evidence, indeed. Because you can't possibly know that and you haven't checked it out yet, right.
But what I wonder is if there's no real, practical reason to take it any more seriously than the FSM...then I'm thinking that if you believe that Kyu's attitude is indeed as you say "that anything that is related to reincarnation is automatically "bollocks"." and that "Such an attitude is both anti-scientific and close-minded." - then I wonder if you would also say that it's anti-scientific and close minded to say that anything releated to the FSM is automatically bollocks?
Now on principle, of course you can't absolutely know that anything related to the FSM is bollocks. But in a practical and sense you can very seriously argue that it's so bloody improbable that it's not bollocks that it's a waste of time to look into it right...(the FSM that is)...would you agree with that? And if so...do you believe it's the same case with reincarnation or not?
I don't think Kyu is claiming what would, indeed, be fallacy. Namely; because I think he's aware of the negative proof fallacy. That of course being that whether he checks the 'presented evidence' out or not...it's a fallacy to believe it's absolutely disproved. It's perhaps possible that reincarnation could still exist with or even without evidence - simply because you can't prove a negative
EvF
But what I wonder is if there's no real, practical reason to take it any more seriously than the FSM...then I'm thinking that if you believe that Kyu's attitude is indeed as you say "that anything that is related to reincarnation is automatically "bollocks"." and that "Such an attitude is both anti-scientific and close-minded." - then I wonder if you would also say that it's anti-scientific and close minded to say that anything releated to the FSM is automatically bollocks?
Now on principle, of course you can't absolutely know that anything related to the FSM is bollocks. But in a practical and sense you can very seriously argue that it's so bloody improbable that it's not bollocks that it's a waste of time to look into it right...(the FSM that is)...would you agree with that? And if so...do you believe it's the same case with reincarnation or not?
I don't think Kyu is claiming what would, indeed, be fallacy. Namely; because I think he's aware of the negative proof fallacy. That of course being that whether he checks the 'presented evidence' out or not...it's a fallacy to believe it's absolutely disproved. It's perhaps possible that reincarnation could still exist with or even without evidence - simply because you can't prove a negative
EvF
