Absence of Evidence..............

You may conclude provisionally that it does not exist physically within the territory you have combed. Not at all. We know invisible pink unicorns do not physically exist.To be 'pink' an object has to reflect a certain band of light from the spectrum back at the viewer. Invisible objects do not do this. If they did, the colour would render them visible.It is thus impossible for an object to be both invisible and pink at the same time.We may reasonably conclude that, as the object you propose is a self-contradiction according to the laws of physics, it cannot physically exist.(Note that in discussing the physics of light we are discussing known territory--'territory we have combed.')_______Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.

Not at all because when I feel the the presence of the invisible pink unicorn I can feel the pinkness of his aura. I know he exists and I know he is pink. Should he choose to show himself he would indeed reflect the appropriate wavelengths of light but his pinkness is more than just physical colour. It is an inherent part of his very being.
You cannot tell me what I know or the basis on which I know it. I know.
I have non-empirical evidence in the form of my intuition and feelings that support this comprehensive and well founded belief in the mighty invisible pink unicorn. Praise be to him.

There is another school of thought that is relevant to this discussion and that is the pragmatism of Dewey and Peirce. In the absence of evidence, when presented with a number of possible options that cannot be established with any degree of confidence, which option should be given the most consideration, and why? The pragmatist would assert that in such situations, one should always take the path that is capable of generating the most beneficial results for society, the individual, or the institution.As an example, consider the origin of life at the molecular level. It is fair to say the scientific community lacks the evidence and understanding of the pre-biotic conditions that had a hand in creating the molecular machinery that gave rise to self-replicating organisms. As the problem is so complex and may be so specific to conditions and contingencies that cannot be replicated in our current environment, we may never understand.So, in the absence of evidence, should we posit a rational transcendent explanation for molecular origins and leave it at that?As the aim of science is to construct naturalistic theories to explain and predict, there is no benefit to the institution of science or to society to posit such an explanation. Even if such a hypothesis was true, science is not concerned with the transcendent, nor is it capable of testing hypothesis that, by definition, transcend the natural world. As such, this option should not even be considered as it is self-defeating to the goal and aim of science. Furthermore, when posing such a solution, there is no impetus to continue to explore and test and find naturalistic explanations that add to our understanding of natural phenomenon. Such dead-end explanations may very well result in stifling potential knowledge obtained through discoveries that benefits humanity via advancements in medicine and technology. In short, transcendent explanations are benign and have no pragmatic value for the institution, the individual, or society.The pragmatic position is very much relevant to the creation/evolution debate and the adoption of ID in schools etc. Is it really beneficial to the students of science, to the institution of science itself, and to society at large to interject such benign explanations into the curriculum? The philosophical pragmatist, whether a theist or an atheist would both respond with a resounding "no!" Forget about the details, such a position does nothing to advance the institution of science or society and should be rejected on pragmatic grounds alone.Another example concerns the existence of the soul and the personal survival of bodily death. Of course, science cannot empirically disprove the existence of the non-physical, nor can it test for such things. The pragmatist, however, would assert that in the absence of evidence, we should reject this world view as it offers no overall positive benefit to society and has shown to be counter-productive to society in many instances. Such a view tends to cause the individual to live for the future and not the present. What happens now takes a back seat to what happens in an unseen world that transcends our existence.For many pragmatists, such a dualist position also is ultimately dehumanizing because it tells us we are not really what we appear to be -- beings immersed inside the confines of a corporeal world. Such a view inevitably leads to the rejection of the seen for the unseen. If we are living in the end times, who cares what happens to the environment? If we are the last generation, as many believe, It doesn't matter what we leave for our grandchildren, because there won't be any grandchildren.The pragmatist sits quietly in the corner listening to the debates and occasionally comes forward to offer a slap across the face. The pragmatist would not be concerned with responding to the dualist position on rational grounds; she would simply approach the dualist and offer up the following -- "Please get your head out of the clouds. If this concerns you, wait to worry about these things when you are abut to die, we have important work to take care of while we are here."Obviously, the pragmatic position has nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of assertions. The pragmatist is more concerned with practicality, hence the term pragmatic. There will always be questions that cannot be answered; there will always be an absence of evidence for some assertion, hypothesis, claim, or world view. In our search for truths, it is rare to find the individual willing to give consideration to the pragmatic effects our search has on our institutions and society at large. The pragmatist is simply asking individuals to occasionally pause to consider these types of questions -- given the priorities and goals of our institutions and of society, is there any practical value in heading down a particular fork in the road?

The things I think you refer to are largely based on mathematical constructs. Nobody can dispute that there is an inherent relation between mathematics and reality in some sense. The nature and strength of this relation is an intriguing question in it's own right. I would certainly think the relationship strong enough to warrant empirical research into these things on the basis of the very empirical fact that mathematical constructs have previously succsessfully given rise to scientifically testable theories of reality.
However if after exhaustive research into things such as string theory (that potentially gives rise to colliding branes, T<0, multiverse, parallel universes etc. etc.) there remains and absolute absence of any empirical evidence for such things then - Yes I ultimately would include them.
Strings, branes etc. are not inherently untestable in the same that is claimed for the soul. They have a basis in mathematics with which there is a strong and interesting link with empiricism. They also are indisputably fucking difficult to test experimentally. There is a fundamental difference here. There is no rational reason to believe in them. Nor God, nor the soul, nor Vishna etc. etc. That is the point. That is a contradiction in terms. How can there be no empiriical evidence for the existence of a species that we know existed purely through empirical means?
The fact we thought they had all died out is a stupid example and a stupid argument in the context of evidence for things which are inherently non-empirical. An argument that frankly Raz is beneath you. Yes such as a graviton. Indeed insufficient technology is a problem when it comes to empirical eveidence for things. But that is a very different problem to saying that something is inherently unknowable. If our only reason for thinking we cannot detect gravitons is technological then nobody is claiming that their existence should be ruled out. But if sufficient technology for their detection is deemed to be in place and still we consistently fail to find them then it is time for a new theory to be put forward.
That is how science progresses. Evidence is not about certainty. It is about likelihood. I cannot be certain that someone who says God told him to kill prostitutes did not actually converse with God. But I doubt it. I cannot guarantee that he who claims the existence of the invisible pink unicorn is not actaully the sole knower of truth in the universe. But I doubt it. I cannot truly know if someone tells me that they have a soul that they do not. But I doubt it.
All are equally (un)evidenced.
At what point does the necessarily tentativeness of empirical investigation become to all practical intents and purposes certainty?
The same certainty that you no doubt apply to the existence of invisible pink unicorns should be applied to the existence of the soul on the bais of evidence at hand. That is my argument in a nutshell.Do you really disagree with that? Phew!! I thought we had lost you there for a moment

The OP makes the common mistakes of confusing factuality with truth, scientific knowledge with knowledge, and physical evidence with reality. The rest of the argument is built on these Silly Putty assumptions. No. But in science, yes.One reason subjects besides science are taught in public schools is because more is really happening. No. But in science, yes. No. But in science, yes.Don't believe there's more? Believe the science. It shows you.Behold the human brain. In it you will find two hemispheres and a cerebral cortex and loci that handle a variety of functions. Science can tell you which loci deal with empirical reasoning, mathematics, and the other mental functions that you need for your lab work. Find these. Once you've done that, notice how much of your brain is still left.The rest of your brain isn't just RAM cache. Big chunks of it take care of additional aspects of your thinking.You can deny, if you wish, that you need any of that extra-scientific functioning. But if you were to amputate those parts of the brain that handle it, you would not be happy with the results.Which is likely one reason why most people of this temperament don't go that far. They just pretend instead that all that unwanted brain matter has already been removed. They declare themselves to be scientific-method-only thinkers who handle every choice in life as if it were a math problem. Many even kid themselves that they have achieved the Total Scientific Lifestyle. The believe every conclusion they draw in life to be demonstrably empirical in nature. Emotions and other factors play no part.Regardless, the rest of their brain remains in the picture. It exercises its say and even yanks them around by its non-rational strings. They no longer see it. But their non-rational side remains much more obvious to their friends. Equally invalid, by your reasoning.You have no evidence for the physical existence of ethics. This makes the entire debate pointless. Asking about the best way to find ethical solutions is like asking about the best way to track invisible pink unicorns.Right?_________Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.

Fine. No need to go off topic. Call it weak atheism. I've never met a strong atheist. The concept probably exists so that theists can pretend that atheists, like themselves, have a Faith.You're welcome to describe people like Russell and Dawkins and any other well known weak atheists you can think of as agnostics if you want to.What the O.P. seems to be about is that many people seem to think that if an evidenceless proposition cannot be disproven it somehow becomes a fifty/fifty idea, rather than having to gain credibility by presenting evidence in its favour.I say that it's madness to believe in anything for which there's absolutely no evidence.The agnostic arguments should automatically lead to what you call skeptical agnosticism, or weak atheism.From wiki:

quote:

---

Atheism, as an explicit position, either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism. When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities, a type of nontheism.

---

No one can "affirm the nonexistence" of beings for whose existence there is no evidence, so only the broad definition is of any use.

I am not sure what you are actually advocating in practical terms.If claims are made for the possible existence of something completely non-empirical and these claims have a direct consequence on perceived moral issues regarding actual practical restrictions should we heed those concerns or not?I am obviously thinking of Christian claims of a soul and the effect this has on medical research but I am trying (admittedly clumsily) to keep the question more general and not derail the whole thread down that one topic route.

I was presenting the answer the pragmatist would offer to the questions posed in the OP.In the absence of evidence, philosophers, scientists, and theologians always have, and always will, argue any number of particular positions. Most of the profound questions people are asking have no absolute, objective answers. The pramgatist is simply asserting that when answers are not available, the goal should be to take the position that offers the most benefit to society, the individual, and the institution.

I have obviously not explained myself well enough. Claims of 'truth' in any direction were not what was intended. No evidence based claim one way or the other can ever be declared as "truth". The inherent tentativity of science is, in my opinion it's guiding light and source of success. However there comes a point where to all practical intents and purposes conclusions must be deemed to be "true". Which subjects are not based on the empirical?
Language? Art? Literature? Are these not products of the very empirical human brain. A brain that has evolved over millions of years?
I am not advocating we replace "art appreciation" with lessons on evolutionary psychology and attempts to answer why we find certain things appealing. Perish the thought!!!
But the roots of these things are undeniably empirical. How can you claim this as an example of non-empirical when the very empirical act of slicing parts out of someones brain has the effects that you are using in your example.
The fact that the physical brain is required to perform such "non-empirical" functions is about as strong evidence as could be delivered to the fact that at root these things are indeed rooted in the empirical.
Either we mean very different things by empirical or you are inherently contradicting yourself.I am not trying to turn myself into some sort of logical rational automaton. Good Lord I would rather die!!!
All is rooted in the empirical is my claim. Slicing people's brains in half and pointing out that their individuality, personality and being are deeply affected is hardly an argument against this is it?I don't see how anything you have said has any real relevance as to whether or not those things for which it is claimed that there can be no empirical basis or evidence should be considered to exist or not?Do you believe that you have an empirically undetectable spiritual "aura". If not why not? There are many that would claim that you do? On what basis do you dismiss ther claims (assuming that you do)?

(Cue choir, cue organ.) Then your unicorn is real. Its invisibility is real, its pinkness is real, just as its effect on your life is real.It is real enough that we can both sit here and talk about it as if it physically existed. Real enough that it could have real cultural significance in time, should enough people find your vision seductive and adopt the image for themselves.This reality, though, is not physical or literal. You admit this yourself. It is thus not the kind of reality science deals with.No problem with physical laws exists now. Your unicorn is not a physical reality, so it is not bound by its laws. It can be what it is.Your unicorn is a subjective reality, not an objective one. It is a mental image.And it is a symbol. Pink 'more than' pink, existence 'more than' existence means these attributes symbolize something beyond the literal things we usually mean by these terms.Your creature is not science. For all the enrichment it brings to your life, you are stuck, I'm afraid, with its symbolic rather than empirical reality.The sooner you recognize this, and keep the two spheres distinct, the better for your unicorn, for science, and for yourself. If you confuse the subjective and symbolic with the objective and literal, you are likely to say incredibly silly and unnecessary things about equine zoology. Worse, you could find yourself losing a lot of money on expeditions to the Himalayas to find the Great Original Unicorn Corral.________Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.

I showed that they are manifested in the physical. Physical is not a synonym for 'empirical,' as you use it here.'Physical' refers to the organ under discussion: a brain. 'Empirical' refers to one way it does something. 'Non-empirical' refers to another.The physical brain uses both empirical and non-empirical means of gathering and processing information. Both are necessary.______Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.

Too true. Does anything ever have absolute answers? Outside of religion (which claims absolutes but on shaky ground by any objective standard) and mathematics. With all due respect that is not really an answer.
Each position considers itself to have the best answer in practical terms. Each position believes it has the best access to the "truth". Each position just places different emphasis on what it believes is most beneficial on the basis of what it believes to be "true".
The theistic may place an emphasis on faith and absolute morality as most beneficial and most likley to lead to "truth" (for example).Science is not simply being pragmatic as you suggest. Philosophically science and empiricism is stating that logically it is the only means to reliable conclusions (note not "truth" - in fact the very absence for claims of truth is the basis of science).The gist of this thread is effectively 'Does empiricism have the only valid claim to meaningful conclusions?'I would say an unresounding "yes".

Non-empirical? Such as....?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I'm having trouble understanding you here. I think you mean to say physical in discussing the role of the brain.'Empirical' is not a synonym for this. 'Empirical' refers to a way of thinking, not to the organ that does it.Many brains are not very 'empirical' at all, as we both know.

It's symbolic reality is neither here nor there. My claim is that the invisible pink unicorn is true.Do you dispute the truth (or likelihood of truth if we want to be pedantic) of my claim and if so on what grounds?