9 ms·

> The reality is that you can't prove either case. Perhaps, but under what circumstances should one have to prove a negative? We, similarly, can't prove that

> The reality is that you can't prove either case. Perhaps, but under what circumstances should one have to prove a negative? We, similarly, can't prove that we're not living inside a magic pill ingested by an all-powerful rhinoceros who deplores our existence and wishes to excrete us at the first opportunity unless we all bake delicious lemon tarts and sacrifice them to the rhino by putting them into our toilets. We can't prove Tupac and Biggie, now at peace, aren't living on an island, with black Michael Jackson as their producer, cranking out new tracks and submitting them anonymously to YouTube. We can't prove there's no sea monster who looks identical to Regis Philbin, but bigger than Burj Khalifa, who is contributing to global warming. But basic examinations of the facts lead us to the conclusion that such claims, especially absent evidence, aren't worth arranging our lives around.

melling 16y ago
Look, I could care less which side you take, or why you take it. I'm simply saying that just because you don't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Smarter people than you and me have taken different sides. I could easily make a case for either side. However, this is HN, and this discussion doesn't belong here.
- sofal 16y ago
  The reason why this discussion "doesn't belong here" is that people are unable to critically discuss issues which are so closely tied to their personal identity, like cherished religious beliefs, without getting too emotional about it. The HN community is just as vulnerable to this as any other, and this is unfortunate.
- danilocampos 16y ago
  > Smarter people than you and me have taken different sides. The existence of other people's opinions doesn't mean I get to abdicate my responsibility to form (or share) my own view. > I could easily make a case for either side. I'm not sure you could easily make a case for either side. One side requires faith, and making cases on that is notoriously difficult. > However, this is HN, and this discussion doesn't belong here. I think I most disagree with this point. Any reasoned conversation belongs on HN. We're all being reasonable here, so far. I'm more than comfortable being disagreed with, and as long as we all have the same comfort, it's all good, no?
Jach 16y ago
I take issue with your use of "prove a negative". http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales... The Problem of Induction is something different. Let's all just be good Bayesians now and drop the argument of what is proof, what is evidence, what are tenable beliefs given X evidence, etc. It's a solved issue if anyone cares about being correct.

melling 16y ago

Look, I could care less which side you take, or why you take it. I'm simply saying that just because you don't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Smarter people than you and me have taken different sides. I could easily make a case for either side. However, this is HN, and this discussion doesn't belong here.

sofal 16y ago
The reason why this discussion "doesn't belong here" is that people are unable to critically discuss issues which are so closely tied to their personal identity, like cherished religious beliefs, without getting too emotional about it. The HN community is just as vulnerable to this as any other, and this is unfortunate.
danilocampos 16y ago
> Smarter people than you and me have taken different sides. The existence of other people's opinions doesn't mean I get to abdicate my responsibility to form (or share) my own view. > I could easily make a case for either side. I'm not sure you could easily make a case for either side. One side requires faith, and making cases on that is notoriously difficult. > However, this is HN, and this discussion doesn't belong here. I think I most disagree with this point. Any reasoned conversation belongs on HN. We're all being reasonable here, so far. I'm more than comfortable being disagreed with, and as long as we all have the same comfort, it's all good, no?

Jach 16y ago

I take issue with your use of "prove a negative". http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales... The Problem of Induction is something different. Let's all just be good Bayesians now and drop the argument of what is proof, what is evidence, what are tenable beliefs given X evidence, etc. It's a solved issue if anyone cares about being correct.