RE: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
November 1, 2012 at 10:00 am
(This post was last modified: November 1, 2012 at 10:17 am by Edwardo Piet.)
(November 1, 2012 at 7:42 am)Kirbmarc Wrote: If you don't have a way to detect something, believing in it is irrational.
Logically irrational yes, pragmatically irrational not necessarily. If believing in something undetectable somehow gave you the boost of confidence required to help get you through something in life - or help you avoid death itself - then it can be pragmatically rational, it can be useful like a placebo can be useful. It is pragmatically rational to believe in what helps solve the problem, whether that belief is true or false. It is only when the logical irrationality of the matter negatively affects the pragmatic rationality of the matter that it also therefore becomes pragmatically irrational and unjustifiable too.
Just out of curiosity: can we not detect the truth of something through logic? If "detect" means to more or less "discover" don't you detect something whenever you discover the truth of something through logical argument?