Wrong. If there is no evidence, then there is no proof either way.
Imagine looking at a point in the night sky and say you want to check if there is a start at that point. You look at the most powerful telescope that we have, and yet you see no star.
Is that a non-strong evidence, as you put it, that there is no star at that point? I think not. There is no evidence one way or other. That is it.
But the scientific community of today is like "We have looked with the most powerful telescopes that we have, and yet there is no star, so it seems that there is really no star there".
This is ABSURD.
Because "most powerful telescope we have today" is an arbitrary claim. There is always the chance that the "Most powerful" is just not good enough for the task at hand. But the "scientists" (as well as the business that wants this proof badly to sell their products) don't like to admit it.
There's a lot of beauty in embracing not-knowing.
Ignorance is bliss.
I dunno about that.
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
Wrong. It's not strong evidence of absence, but it absolutely is evidence.
Wrong. If there is no evidence, then there is no proof either way.
Imagine looking at a point in the night sky and say you want to check if there is a start at that point. You look at the most powerful telescope that we have, and yet you see no star.
Is that a non-strong evidence, as you put it, that there is no star at that point? I think not. There is no evidence one way or other. That is it.
But the scientific community of today is like "We have looked with the most powerful telescopes that we have, and yet there is no star, so it seems that there is really no star there".
This is ABSURD.
Because "most powerful telescope we have today" is an arbitrary claim. There is always the chance that the "Most powerful" is just not good enough for the task at hand. But the "scientists" (as well as the business that wants this proof badly to sell their products) don't like to admit it.
4 replies →