Faith?

[Eilonnwy]

Me neither. However, that is not what you said, Eilonnwy. The switch you just pulled here is blatant. If I put it to the other members of this site, I'm sure they would be able to detect what the difference is between (i) "there really is not a dragon" and (ii) "there probably is not a dragon." The former is what you had said. The former is what commits the fallacy. The former is what Sagan neither does nor would support. To conclude ¬P ("there really is not a dragon") based on the lack of evidence for P ("there is a dragon") commits the ad ignorantiam fallacy. Q.E.D.

(ii) is what I meant. I realize now I should have worded it better.

As far as empirical evidence goes, I still maintain it's the best method of discerning what is true. I don't think it's the only method, but the best. As far as philosophy goes, you can logically assert something but that doesn't make it true.