This post is about the burden of proof and the like, and whether it's established correctly or not - so therefore it is implicitly going to contain the subject of Evidence and Faith, but this post is not addressed at fr0d0l, but to whoever is interested. So I shall post it. (And I'm not going to argue with fr0d0 about it here).
For thought to be non-physical is the odd exception to the norm, and hence what the burden of proof is on here. Just as with evolution when an evolutionary explanation for an organism hasn't been found yet that does not mean that until it is 'then I guess it's irreducibly complex and there must be a God', that would be God of the gaps. So then, analogous to that, whether it has been pinpointed exactly if thoughts are physical or not - or whether it has been pinpointed exactly where they reside or not - since the whole notion of something existing and being 'non-physical' hasn't had any positive support yet, hasn't had any positive evidence - the burden of proof is still entirely on the notion of 'non-physical thought' before it is on physical.
There is a difference between 1.'so far we haven't had convincing positive evidence that this thing is physical' and 2.'This thing is non-physical [or in other words, positively not physical].'
1 doesn't equate to 2, absence of evidence isn't necessarily evidence of absence. Just because something hasn't necessarily been shown to be physical yet, or at least not fully and/or in every way...doesn't mean it is positively the opposite...this does not follow and is in fact the Argument from Ignorance...which ironically Purple Rabbit accused me of in the past, when I believe he was falling to it himself (In the end it seemed he was seemly defining 'not shown to be physical' as 'non-physical' - which is misleading, after all: What would be done if positive evidence actually was found for the non-physical, but something like 'thought' was already called it simply because it wasn't positively shown to be physical? What, would thought then be called 'non-physical 2.0'? Lol).
The burden of proof isn't always on the positive claim, it depends what the exception is.
To claim evolution would be a positive claim, but that has evidence, so to claim evolution to being wrong, false, and not existing - would be the exception and would need a great deal more support and evidence.
I'll try and sum up my thoughts, and I'd be interested in some feedback:
1. The burden of proof is on the exception, it starts by default on the positive, but it's always on the exception. 2. For sake of argument, lets say there's definitely no positive evidence either way: No positive evidence that thought is either physical or non-physical 3. Non-physical is the exception and so if there's no positive evidence for either side, the non-physical is what requires evidence.
There's a difference to the claim that X is not physical (whether true or not, the claim is different to the following -), and the claim that X doesn't have any positive evidence that it is physical.
EvF
For thought to be non-physical is the odd exception to the norm, and hence what the burden of proof is on here. Just as with evolution when an evolutionary explanation for an organism hasn't been found yet that does not mean that until it is 'then I guess it's irreducibly complex and there must be a God', that would be God of the gaps. So then, analogous to that, whether it has been pinpointed exactly if thoughts are physical or not - or whether it has been pinpointed exactly where they reside or not - since the whole notion of something existing and being 'non-physical' hasn't had any positive support yet, hasn't had any positive evidence - the burden of proof is still entirely on the notion of 'non-physical thought' before it is on physical.
There is a difference between 1.'so far we haven't had convincing positive evidence that this thing is physical' and 2.'This thing is non-physical [or in other words, positively not physical].'
1 doesn't equate to 2, absence of evidence isn't necessarily evidence of absence. Just because something hasn't necessarily been shown to be physical yet, or at least not fully and/or in every way...doesn't mean it is positively the opposite...this does not follow and is in fact the Argument from Ignorance...which ironically Purple Rabbit accused me of in the past, when I believe he was falling to it himself (In the end it seemed he was seemly defining 'not shown to be physical' as 'non-physical' - which is misleading, after all: What would be done if positive evidence actually was found for the non-physical, but something like 'thought' was already called it simply because it wasn't positively shown to be physical? What, would thought then be called 'non-physical 2.0'? Lol).
The burden of proof isn't always on the positive claim, it depends what the exception is.
To claim evolution would be a positive claim, but that has evidence, so to claim evolution to being wrong, false, and not existing - would be the exception and would need a great deal more support and evidence.
I'll try and sum up my thoughts, and I'd be interested in some feedback:
1. The burden of proof is on the exception, it starts by default on the positive, but it's always on the exception. 2. For sake of argument, lets say there's definitely no positive evidence either way: No positive evidence that thought is either physical or non-physical 3. Non-physical is the exception and so if there's no positive evidence for either side, the non-physical is what requires evidence.
There's a difference to the claim that X is not physical (whether true or not, the claim is different to the following -), and the claim that X doesn't have any positive evidence that it is physical.
EvF
