(February 15, 2013 at 11:48 am)Brian37 Wrote:(February 15, 2013 at 11:28 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: We can't know for sure, but we gain nothing by assuming it isn't. At the very least, it's the reality we've got to deal with.
NO scientific method has never worked by assuming first.
Scientific method works on prior established data. Projecting with prior data is not assuming. Assuming does not require testing.
Assuming something is true before you confirm it with testing is stupid.
Projecting that something will be true because you have tested prior data STILL requires testing to confirm it.
"We cant know for sure" does not mean we assume pink unicorns, or Thor or Transporters will be true because we haven't disproven them. That is shifting the burden of proof.
Claims are never 50% 50% propositions. Law of probability allows us to discard something. And even outside science we do this all the time without disproving something.
"I am fucking Angelina Jolie right now". There, now do you need a lab to consider the likely hood of that claim? Technically it could be true since she is real and I am real, but somehow you can rightfully discard that claim without assuming it to be true because you cant prove it isn't true.
Humans reject all sorts of claims without labs. But, when it comes to proving something scientifically the integrity of the method cannot be based on "prove it isn't true". That is how psuedo science and quacks and snack oil people con others. IN SCIENCE you don't assume, you test to confirm.
What are you on about? What is it you think I've said that has you in such a tizzy?
