9 ms·

If there's no evidence about a situation, there's no evidence for any theory about the situation. There's no evidence for the proposition A. There's no evidence

If there's no evidence about a situation, there's no evidence for any theory about the situation. There's no evidence for the proposition A. There's no evidence for the proposition not A. By your reasoning we have to believe that both these propositions are untrue: A and not A. This seems totally insane.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
As Russell's teapot [0] demonstrates, that is not the case. A thing, whether the existence of a teapot floating in space, or an old architecture myth, is by default untrue until sufficient evidence arises showing it is true. This article is simply pointing out that such evidence doesn't exist in the staircase attacker theory. We do not believe that maybe it is true this teapot exists, maybe not, simply because the initial hypothesis (that it is true in the first place) hasn't yet been falsified. If that were the case, I could make up a thousand improbable myths, and say they're all maybe true, maybe not, and we would have to treat them all as equally plausible until someone wastes their time trying to disprove all thousand, and then I could make up a thousand more. That is why the burden of proof of truth lies with the person asserting the truth of a teapot/staircase belief To add to your A vs. not-A problem, you are close to identifying the resolution, too: For an analogue in statistics, A = "this staircase explanation has sufficient evidence to say it is true", not-A = "this staircase explanation does not have sufficient evidence to conclude it is true". Not-A here is example of what is called the null hypothesis in statistics. The null hypothesis is the default. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
- calderknight 3y ago
  The point of Russell's argument is that we should not believe in the Christian god/the teapot. Not that we should believe that those things do not exist. It's an argument against believing without evidence, not for believing without evidence.
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    the point of Russell's teapot is that even though the teapot (like this myth) is neither proven nor disproven, we should, and do, treat it unproven, because that is the default state until sufficient evidence arises It's an argument against entertaining theories that have no evidence, against ignorant agnosticism towards any arbitrary theory

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago

As Russell's teapot [0] demonstrates, that is not the case. A thing, whether the existence of a teapot floating in space, or an old architecture myth, is by default untrue until sufficient evidence arises showing it is true. This article is simply pointing out that such evidence doesn't exist in the staircase attacker theory. We do not believe that maybe it is true this teapot exists, maybe not, simply because the initial hypothesis (that it is true in the first place) hasn't yet been falsified. If that were the case, I could make up a thousand improbable myths, and say they're all maybe true, maybe not, and we would have to treat them all as equally plausible until someone wastes their time trying to disprove all thousand, and then I could make up a thousand more. That is why the burden of proof of truth lies with the person asserting the truth of a teapot/staircase belief To add to your A vs. not-A problem, you are close to identifying the resolution, too: For an analogue in statistics, A = "this staircase explanation has sufficient evidence to say it is true", not-A = "this staircase explanation does not have sufficient evidence to conclude it is true". Not-A here is example of what is called the null hypothesis in statistics. The null hypothesis is the default. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

calderknight 3y ago
The point of Russell's argument is that we should not believe in the Christian god/the teapot. Not that we should believe that those things do not exist. It's an argument against believing without evidence, not for believing without evidence.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  the point of Russell's teapot is that even though the teapot (like this myth) is neither proven nor disproven, we should, and do, treat it unproven, because that is the default state until sufficient evidence arises It's an argument against entertaining theories that have no evidence, against ignorant agnosticism towards any arbitrary theory