From: ben (ben@machinegod.org)
Date: Fri Mar 22 2002 - 16:47:49 MST
I think the argument comes down, again, to whether or not (lack of proof of
presence) equals (proof of absence) - an argument that I think doesn't
discard the laws of nature entirely, but might call into question the nature
of human observation.
With the tools available to prehistoric man, there was no proof of a lot of
things that we now take for granted. That doesn't mean that they spring into
existence at the time of the invention of newer, better tools. I fully
believe that there are things we can't yet observe much less quantify
accurately. I believe this based on the fact that throughout history this
has always been the case and I find it highly improbable that (if the
process is even finite) it ended already.
Therefore, given
A: that our entire history has been one of gradually increasing perceptive
abilities
A': that throughout said history things have been imperceptible that have
been later proven to be true
B: that the probability of us being at the end of this process at any given
time is incredibly slim
does it not follow that
C: at any given time (including the present) there will be things that
although we cannot perceive, still exist
and therefore
D: lack of proof of presence cannot logically be taken as proof of absence.
[disclaimer] Note that in C' I did not use the word 'practically': logic
dictates that we base our actions on that which is provable, as we have no
better resource at the time. But an open mind is, rationally and logically,
a Good Thing.[/disclaimer]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:45 MDT