Well yes...How do you know it's not worth looking into, if you haven't checked it out yet? I agree on that point.
What I mean is that: Yes it's not impossible, yes you can't prove a negative. Yes, if someone presents even a claim on the FSM...you can check that out too. And it would be wrong to specifically claim that you know absolutely that it doesn't exist. But what I'm wondering is: How do you know how to judge it? Or how do you know when you've judged it successfully, properly...or thoroughly enough? And isn't your time perhaps better spent, searching for things that aren't analogous in an absurd degree of complex improbability to Russell's Teapot or the FSM?
Yes they may not be that absurd, becasue they may actually exist (it's not impossible, you can't prove a negative) but isn't your time perhaps better spent elsewhere? How do you test it? Are these things even falsifiable by their definition? Isn't it pretty much like...searching for orbital teapots when someone claims to have a theory on such a matter: Not impossible...but a waste of your time basically?
When someone says something is simply "Bollocks" how do you decide if that statement means "I know it's bollocks" or rather "I think it's bollocks I have my own reasons for that and I simply don't think it's worthwile checking into it. But it's easier to simply just say it's "Bollocks" than repeat this statement on such occasions all the time."?
EvF
What I mean is that: Yes it's not impossible, yes you can't prove a negative. Yes, if someone presents even a claim on the FSM...you can check that out too. And it would be wrong to specifically claim that you know absolutely that it doesn't exist. But what I'm wondering is: How do you know how to judge it? Or how do you know when you've judged it successfully, properly...or thoroughly enough? And isn't your time perhaps better spent, searching for things that aren't analogous in an absurd degree of complex improbability to Russell's Teapot or the FSM?
Yes they may not be that absurd, becasue they may actually exist (it's not impossible, you can't prove a negative) but isn't your time perhaps better spent elsewhere? How do you test it? Are these things even falsifiable by their definition? Isn't it pretty much like...searching for orbital teapots when someone claims to have a theory on such a matter: Not impossible...but a waste of your time basically?
When someone says something is simply "Bollocks" how do you decide if that statement means "I know it's bollocks" or rather "I think it's bollocks I have my own reasons for that and I simply don't think it's worthwile checking into it. But it's easier to simply just say it's "Bollocks" than repeat this statement on such occasions all the time."?
EvF
