quote:
Are you claiming that we can find empirical evidence for the soul (for example) if we just look hard enough?
No no no. Not what I was going for. I was just exemplifying that the absense of evidence really can be used to conclude that something doesn't exist, but that it doesn't "prove" it.
But that's becasue the burden of proof is on the person claiming (entity)
does exist. When the person making the claim fails to meet the burden of proof, it can be concluded that there is no reason to believe the claim.
Me and millions of other people thinking that it exists is enough for me to not be certain that it does not.
Appeal to Popularity. The popularity of an idea is
still not a good reason to suggest that it
does exist.
quote:
Or if there is give me an example of a form of non-empirical and what conclusion you can draw from this "evidence".
It feels like I have a soul so I conclude that I do have one.
"It feels like my every action is being directed by an invisible pink unicorn, so I conclude that the invisible pink unicorn exists."
Subjective "evidence" is not really evidence of
anything whatsoever. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that subjective "evidence" with nothing empirical to support it is actually evidence of
delusion.
quote:
In which case the claims of every nutjob on the planet should be treated as equally as valid as any religious claims for the soul and such like.
Pretty much, except that we can add plausibility in there.
Personal incredulity is not a valid method of testing claims.
Seriously, CS, how plausible is the idea that an inivisble man lives in the sky, and that he came to Earth as his own son and sacrificed himself to himself to pay the price of a debt he set in the first place?
Is that more or less plausible than invisible fairies controlling the weather? Than Zeus controlling lightning? Than the invisible pink unicorn I "feel" is standing right next to you?
Your entire argument really boils down to two things:
1) Really popular ideas might be true even if they have no empirical support.
2) You can't prove that unfalsifiable ideas are false, so they might be true if they sound "plausible" to me.
These are flawed arguments. The first is a combination Appeal to Authority and reversal of the burden of proof. The second is a mix of personal incredulity and anotehr reversal of teh burden of proof.
The only
logical conclusion given a lack of any empirical evidence to support a claim is that the claim is
very likely false. "Non-empirical evidence," such as subjective "feelings" or appeals to popularity are not evidence of
anything whatsoever. In fact, in the absence of any and all empirical evidence to support a claim, "non-empirical evidence" is evidence of nothing mroe than delusion.
™ Version 4.2
