Faith?

[Tiberius]

If a purely logical argument could be presented without fallacies, I'd go with that. That reminds me, I need to respond to Arcanus on the TAG debate. I've just been so busy with coursework recently...do forgive me

[Ryft]

Okay, what other method is there that would work?

That is determined by your metaphysical and epistemological views. For all I know, you may agree with Eilonnwy who believes (it seems at this point) that evidence is not 'evidence' unless it's empirical. You might hold to metaphysical naturalism (expressly or implicitly), begging the question on God's existence. Who knows. I was simply correcting your flow of reasoning, so that it followed validly. Some people, like myself and apparently Adrian, hold that other forms of evidence exist, like logical and mathematical, etc.

If a purely logical argument could be presented without fallacies, I'd go with that. That reminds me, I need to respond to Arcanus on the TAG debate. I've just been so busy with coursework recently...do forgive me

Thou art forgiven. Remember, I am essentially working two full-time jobs over the next few weeks so I don't mind you taking time with your response.

[fr0d0]

I am essentially working two full-time jobs over the next few weeks

One more and we could think of you as tripartate

[leo-rcc]

Okay, what other method is there that would work?

That is determined by your metaphysical and epistemological views.

A test is something you devise so you can look at the outcome, and that you can cross reference with others looking at either the same data or data from their own tests based om the same testing method (preferably by those who disagree with your hypothesis as they are more likely to shoot holes in your hypotheses and testing method outline), and you draw a conclusion from that outcome. If it requires something as subjective as personal views then I consider that test flawed. I would be way too open for interpretation.

[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.