3 ms·

I like that, in this age, science tries to keep statements factual. "No evidence" is an objective statement of fact to counter the millions of examples of basel

I like that, in this age, science tries to keep statements factual. "No evidence" is an objective statement of fact to counter the millions of examples of baseless conspiracy BS getting algorithmically hyped into people's news diet. It's a good thing. As new evidence appears that fact is corrected, and people can act accordingly. Without positive claims of truth, science can try to stay objective.

mistermann 3y ago
Can you link to a scientific article that explicitly explains how science has discovered a way to determine nonexistence perfectly (zero possibility for error) in all cases?
- SiempreViernes 3y ago
  I have a link to such an article but unfortunately its contents only renders legibly in a browser using a more modern epistemology than the one you are currently using, sorry.
  - mistermann 3y ago
    Playing the comedy card, another[1] popular technique one will notice when studying human behavior during the discussion of ideological matters. Perhaps someone will study this phenomenon some day, and perhaps use the knowledge they have obtained to do something to address the problem. [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38912340 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38912340
- Sporktacular 3y ago
  It's such a weird standard to hold. Why does "there is no evidence" have to be perfectly true? It's a falsifiable claim that anyone is free to disprove, so do your own meta analysis and present the counterclaim. Science has to try to be objective and thorough and that gives it credibility. Compare that to the unfalsifiable claims of conspiracists like "China engineered the virus but covered it up so well we have no evidence". And then the same people accepting suggestions of a much weaker claim that it escaped from a lab, as proof that what they said all along has been proven correct. "No evidence" is a perfectly acceptable scientific claim, as open to refutation as any other.
  - mistermann 3y ago
    [flagged]

mistermann 3y ago

Can you link to a scientific article that explicitly explains how science has discovered a way to determine nonexistence perfectly (zero possibility for error) in all cases?

SiempreViernes 3y ago
I have a link to such an article but unfortunately its contents only renders legibly in a browser using a more modern epistemology than the one you are currently using, sorry.
- mistermann 3y ago
  Playing the comedy card, another[1] popular technique one will notice when studying human behavior during the discussion of ideological matters. Perhaps someone will study this phenomenon some day, and perhaps use the knowledge they have obtained to do something to address the problem. [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38912340 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38912340
Sporktacular 3y ago
It's such a weird standard to hold. Why does "there is no evidence" have to be perfectly true? It's a falsifiable claim that anyone is free to disprove, so do your own meta analysis and present the counterclaim. Science has to try to be objective and thorough and that gives it credibility. Compare that to the unfalsifiable claims of conspiracists like "China engineered the virus but covered it up so well we have no evidence". And then the same people accepting suggestions of a much weaker claim that it escaped from a lab, as proof that what they said all along has been proven correct. "No evidence" is a perfectly acceptable scientific claim, as open to refutation as any other.
- mistermann 3y ago
  [flagged]