Hi DevilsAdvocate, this is getting long and repetitious.
Logic dictates that the burden of proof lies with the one make a ontologically positive claim aka claim of the existance of something. Not the other way around.
And the person making the positive claim to have evidence or knowledge that they know something.
Again, see
Pseudoskepticism and logic where this has been discussed.
Yes, but gravitons are predicted in physics (specifically quantum field theory).
A prediction is not evidence, it is a logical conclusion that needs to be tested to see if it is true or not.
According to you, because we don't know whether they exist of not, we should by default believe that they do not exist.
It appears that you are unwilling to take your own default position.
That is not how science works. We don't just conjure up ideas like gravitons in a vacuum of knowledge and evidence. Concepts such as gravitons are derived or infered based on previous knowledge (A Posteriori). Scientists believe gravitons to exist because of previous knowledge not in spite of it.
But they do not have specific evidence that gravitons exist. Some scientists may have an opinion based on previous experience, but that opinion is not based on evidence that gravitons
per se exist.
There are also several experiments currently underway i.e. LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory) and VIRGO (Virgo interferometer) that will possibly detect gravitational waves (not invidividual gravitons) in the near future.
And when that time comes, then one can make an informed conclusion whether or not gravitons exist. Until then the default is that we do not know (but we can investigate to see, or wait for more evidence).
Working from a basis of non-existance is not a claim it is a priori knowledge. ...
An opinion that god/s may not exist is not a claim that needs to be substantiated, it is the claim to have special knowledge about the likelihood, or to have absolute knowledge of the truth, that bears the burden of proof. As you agreed in the case of gravitons.
This is the third or fourth time that I have pointed out what needs to be substantiated.
... It is the default position, not a claim. I am not claiming or asserting that God does not exist, I am inferring (deducing) he does not exist until shown otherwise, just like I deduce that teapots don't orbit Jupiter, unicorns don't exist, pigs can't fly, etc, etc ad infinitim. There is a difference.
It's your opinion, based on your worldview, life experiences and biases, it is not a default position.
And it's called special pleading when you do not take the same position on other claims, example gravitons.
Again replace the word god(s) with unicorns, vampires, werewolfs, leprecauns, yeti, the loch ness monster, big foot, or any other mythological creature and see how ludicrous this sounds. Seriously. If we operated science in this way we would be in serious trouble.
The logical fallacy of consequences?
question
|
is there sufficient valid
information available to decide
| |
yes no
| |
decide based is a
on empirical decision
valid evidence necessary?
(A) / \
yes no ... but ...
/ | |
decide why make a
based on decide decision
inadequate at this anyway
evidence time? based on
=guess =wait opinion
(B) (C) (D)
Dump all those concepts in (C) and wait to see if evidence turns up. One can be skeptical of their existence, yet open-minded enough to consider that they may be true, but that there is insufficient evidence on which to base an (A) type informed conclusion at this time.
Additionally, one is free to investigate any concept in (C) to see if they can develop more evidence. This would depend on personal opinion, resources and willingness to investigate, of course.
People have scientifically investigated yeti, the loch ness monster, big foot, and aliens, because they have a personal interest in finding the truth of those concepts.
And further, this category also includes all hypothesized scientific phenomena that is currently not validated or invalidated by objective empirical evidence, including gravitons.
This in no way hampers the scientific process.
Enjoy.
NOTICE: I am not going to answer all the posts I am getting, as there are just too many that are just repeating old arguments that have already been addressed. I have already answered these, and I have answered them to the point that it is silly to keep repeating my position in the hopes that it is understood and not misrepresented. If you see "RAZD acknowledges this reply" it is because this means you. This is my blanket response to those posts. Likewise if I only answer part of your post/s it is because this applies to the rest. Additionally I may answer your post in reply to someone else, and I just don't need to repeat points already made.
Enjoy
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
™ Version 4.2
(1)