(May 9, 2025 at 3:56 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: You're very close. Obviously, if you observed the rain itself it's pointless to look for evidence. The question is, if you didn't see the rain, would the wet grass be evidence for it? You're right that the answer is no, and you're right that it's because rain isn't the only thing that predicts wet grass.
But the broader conclusion I want you to draw, is that nothing you replace "wet grass" with can confirm that it rained. And anything you attempt to use as evidence, no matter how reasonable it might seem, will always be a logical fallacy.
That's why science doesn't confirm, doesn't evidence, doesn't prove or affirm anything. It does only one thing: falsify.
And when we observe that the grass is dry, what does that tell us about the proposition that it rained?
