RE: Proving a negative
July 5, 2013 at 10:06 pm
(This post was last modified: July 5, 2013 at 10:10 pm by genkaus.)
(July 5, 2013 at 9:39 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: Yea? Some examples, please? If you read closely, I didn't say claimant brings the proof, I said you have to convince people that it's worth it to check it out. How you do this is up to your creativity. The hypothesis is not even needed to explain anything, so why investigate it? I am not obligated to check out claims (i did not say without proof, don't put words in my mouth, if there's proof i wouldn't need to check it out, would i?), it's ridiculous to suggest that anyone is. Did you check out all the claims of seeing Elvis after his death? Did you check out all the ufo sightings, bigfoot, and yetis? Why or why not and how did it negatively or positively affect your life?
Actually, he doesn't even have to convince you that its worth checking out. For example, if someone close to you has cancer and a distant acquaintance tells you, "you know, I heard from a friend of a friend that there is this company in New-York that has a new anti-cancer drug out" - you will check out the claim even if he hasn't given you any proof of its truth or even tried to convince you that it is worth checking out. The same goes for if he gives you a stock tip for a company you are heavily invested in.
But if you dogmatically keep repeating "but I'm not obligated to check out the claim" - you'll be the one who ends up losing.
And as for putting words in your mouth, I'd ask you not to try the same. I never said that you are, in any way, obligated to check anything out. I'm just saying that if you stubbornly refuse to consider any claim that you are not obligated to check out, then you are abandoning your intellect in favor of hasty generalizations.
(July 5, 2013 at 9:39 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: He wasn't, but i was unfortunate enough to have been a christian. And i have reasoned out that christian god doesn't exist.
So you have proven a negative - even though you weren't "obligated" to?
(July 5, 2013 at 9:39 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: For the possibility of a god is a different topic and one i have not devoted much time to, nor do i care to in the future.
And yet you seem to have determined that it is slim.
(July 5, 2013 at 9:44 pm)Minimalist Wrote:Quote:Why not? I can call the bartender to ask if something invisible is drinking margaritas.
And if he says 'yes' you can assume he is as crazy as the average jesus freak.
Why would I assume anything?
The point is, while I didn't have to take up the challenge to disprove the unicorns in the bar, having done so means that now it is up to me how far I take it to find the the disproof. All that means is that I do not accept your off-hand conclusion that "it can't be done".
