Lack of evidence

[The Sum of Awe]

What lens would that be? Would those be the sunglasses you don before entering a dark room declaring you've found the black cat?

In the same way someone can read the Tao Te Ching and make sense of it, see meaning in every word, and it could potentially turn their way of life around - while others might see it as gibberish from a BCE hippie - and yet a cat might look at it and see it as weird ink shapes on paper (not even that).

It depends on how you look at it. And the same can be applied to existence and life itself, whether you see the meaning in it depends on how you look at it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Absence of evidence doesn't mean its not possible

At a certain point it does.

What's not true about it?

There isn't a point in human history where we didn't have evidence for DNA, evolution, or dinosaurs.

Who cares!

You don't dispute that you were being insincere. Faur enough.

Nope. Because its comical denial

They're all examples of exactly what you said you wouldn't rule out:

While I don't accept or believe in something without evidence, I also will not rule it out or think its impossible.

They're an illustration of how your position - if you were to actually put it into practice - would lead to you accepting all sorts of foolish ideas.

 

[Tinker Grey]

In the same way someone can read the Tao Te Ching and make sense of it, see meaning in every word, and it could potentially turn their way of life around - while others might see it as gibberish from a BCE hippie - and yet a cat might look at it and see it as weird ink shapes on paper (not even that).

It depends on how you look at it. And the same can be applied to existence and life itself, whether you see the meaning in it depends on how you look at it.

Your interlocutor said he'd examined the world. You said maybe use another lens. I was hoping you might have something specific.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm acknowledging your posts.
Understanding them...that's another matter.

You are honest. So let me be honest. For those of us, who have learn more than one tradition of science and can add in philosophy, evidence is not that simple for all of the everyday world, because evidence doesn't work on all of it.
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Have you tried looking at those same things but through a different lens? Maybe you're not seeing the forest for the trees.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Edit: how do you think they determine that a species is extinct?

How do you decide what groceries you need to buy?

 

[Revoltingest]

You are honest. So let me be honest. For those of us, who have learn more than one tradition of science and can add in philosophy, evidence is not that simple for all of the everyday world, because evidence doesn't work on all of it.
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

OK.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

OK.

Do you understand the link?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Your interlocutor said he'd examined the world. You said maybe use another lens. I was hoping you might have something specific.

I'd say looking for meaningful synchronicity in the natural world that enforce optimism.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Edit: how do you think they determine that a species is extinct?

How do you decide what groceries you need to buy?

I don't understand the relevance in those two questions, but what I meant is what I said above this quote.

 

[We Never Know]

At a certain point it does.


There isn't a point in human history where we didn't have evidence for DNA, evolution, or dinosaurs.


You don't dispute that you were being insincere. Faur enough.



They're all examples of exactly what you said you wouldn't rule out:

While I don't accept or believe in something without evidence, I also will not rule it out or think its impossible.

They're an illustration of how your position - if you were to actually put it into practice - would lead to you accepting all sorts of foolish ideas.

"There isn't a point in human history where we didn't have evidence for DNA, evolution, or dinosaurs"

List all the evidence the Romans had for DNA, evolution, and dinosaurs.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't understand the relevance in those two questions, but what I meant is what I said above this quote.

And I don't see the relevance of your quote. This isn't about optimism or pessimism.

The relevance of my questions: they both deal with strong, reasonable conclusions drawn from lack of evidence:

How do they determine if a species is extinct? They look. They do observations in a systematic, thorough way, and after enough times of going out and not seeing any members of a species where it ought to be or any signs of it that it ought to have left (nests, scat, whatever), they conclude that the species just isn't there.

How do you decide what groceries to buy? You see what you're out of. You look in the fridge, think "hey - we're out of milk!" and then put "milk" on your grocery list.

When you're putting together your grocery list, I'd bet that you don't say to yourself "well, I want broccoli for tomorrow, and I checked the kitchen and didn't find any broccoli, but still... I can't perfectly rule out that there isn't broccoli in my house somewhere, so I'll stay open to the idea that I have some and not bother to buy more"... right?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"There isn't a point in human history where we didn't have evidence for DNA, evolution, or dinosaurs"

List all the evidence the Romans had for DNA, evolution, and dinosaurs.

DNA & evolution: inheritance and variation between generations.

Dinosaurs: fossilized bones that people would find occasionally.

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you understand the link?

No.
(Cuz I skipped it.)

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No.
(Cuz I skipped it.)

Okay, so you don't want to read a text about science as explained by scientists in regards to evidence, yet you demand evidence. Can you see how that might not be useful?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

And I don't see the relevance of your quote. This isn't about optimism or pessimism.

The relevance of my questions: they both deal with strong, reasonable conclusions drawn from lack of evidence:

How do they determine if a species is extinct? They look. They do observations in a systematic, thorough way, and after enough times of going out and not seeing any members of a species where it ought to be or any signs of it that it ought to have left (nests, scat, whatever), they conclude that the species just isn't there.

How do you decide what groceries to buy? You see what you're out of. You look in the fridge, think "hey - we're out of milk!" and then put "milk" on your grocery list.

When you're putting together your grocery list, I'd bet that you don't say to yourself "well, I want broccoli for tomorrow, and I checked the kitchen and didn't find any broccoli, but still... I can't perfectly rule out that there isn't broccoli in my house somewhere, so I'll stay open to the idea that I have some and not bother to buy more"... right?

The issue is that God isn't a physical thing like broccoli or an extinct species. God is a spiritual thing. People often mistake spiritual as physical energy, understandable due to many misconceptions of what "spiritual energy" actually is.

You're not going to measure God like that, but you can see the results of people putting focus on their spirituality and faith in God.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The issue is that God isn't a physical thing like broccoli or an extinct species. God is a spiritual thing. People often mistake spiritual as physical energy, understandable due to many misconceptions of what "spiritual energy" actually is.

You're not going to measure God like that, but you can see the results of people putting focus on their spirituality and faith in God.

Yeah, I would use other words, but I get your point.

 

[We Never Know]

DNA & evolution: inheritance and variation between generations.

Dinosaurs: fossilized bones that people would find occasionally.

Lol. They had no clue what those were.
I think I might nickname you 9-10ths Trump.. You make things up and believe its true

 

[Revoltingest]

Okay, so you don't want to read a text about science as explained by scientists in regards to evidence, yet you demand evidence. Can you see how that might not be useful?

Asking for lists is a "demand"?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Asking for lists is a "demand"?

No, asking for evidence and then demand that it must be test against the belief in a natural world. That is what you did and yes, that could be understood as a form of scienitism.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, asking for evidence and then demand that it must be test against the belief in a natural world. That is what you did and yes, that could be understood as a form of scienitism.

Seeing demands the way
drunks see pink elephants.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Seeing demands the way
drunks see pink elephants.

Retract that or give evidence.

 

[Revoltingest]

Retract that or give evidence.

Nah.