Right now, I am holding a ball. It is a rather interesting ball. Some may even call it a magic ball.
If you were to be able to see me right now, you might say, "you are not holding a ball, your hands are empty". That is because this is an invisible ball, and you cannot see it with your bare eyes.
You may reach into my hands, feel nothing but air, and ask me, "if you are indeed holding an invisible ball, why can't I feel it? Why is my hand going right through it?"
You being unfamiliar with the ball, I'd have to explain to you that this ball cannot be felt due to the strange properties of its atoms.
This ball also cannot be detected by radar, because radio waves go right through it rather than bouncing off. It cannot be detected by infrared, X-ray, ultraviolet, gamma or microwave detecting devices for similar reasons. No known wavelength of the electromagnetic radiation spectrum has interacted with this ball in a way that anyone on Earth can observe with current technology.
The unknown substance or substances that the ball is made of do not seem to react with any other known substance.
My magic ball is odourless. Even as I bounce it against my wall, it is soundless. It has no discernible taste.
It is highly compressible and can become a point mass if placed in an area of limited space.
Nonetheless, the ball exists. While I cannot prove it, I am sure of it. If you beg to differ on the subject of the existence of my magic ball, that is perfectly fine, but remember, unless you find a way to disprove the existence of my magic ball, my belief that the ball exists is just as valid as your belief that it doesn't and both of our beliefs have the same level of plausibility.
If you develop a new method of detection and still cannot detect my ball, then it is possible that your invention is simply not advanced enough for the task.
I will spend the next few hours playing with my magic ball.
Now, most reasonable people would tell me that my claims of a magic undetectable ball are ludicrous and would not believe them. Even if they could not disprove the existence of the ball because of my numerous ad hoc qualifications, the onus would not be on them to disprove my ball, but rather on me to prove it because I am the one who made the claim.
As Bertrand Russell illustrated with his hypothetical teapot, the burden of proof lies on whoever is making the new positive claim and not whoever is refuting it, because any claim could shield itself from repudiation by being careful to add enough ad hoc hypotheses.
If not for this, if I were to maintain that leprechauns indeed do exist, I could come up with countless reasons why we have not seen evidence of them. Leprechauns are much smarter than humans and can avoid detection. Leprechauns simply do not want to be found by us, so we will never find them. To this date, there hasn't been conclusive evidence that leprechauns do not exist.
Using enough ad hoc hypothesis would render my leprechaun claim unfalsifiable and unverifiable. In terms of reasoning and logic, unsupported unfalsifiable or unverifiable claims are generally not considered valid or scientific because they are impossible to test or observe.
When asked by theists why I do not hold their beliefs in a deity, I usually respond that there is simply not enough proof of the existence of any sort of god to convince me. Too many times, they will respond with "Well, you don't have any proof that there is no god, so your position isn't any more justified than mine."
But claims of the existence of a deity are impossible to disprove. There is no onus on me to disprove them in order to justify my position. It is on the theists to provide evidence for their position, which they are yet to do.
If I tell them that I cannot see god, they say, "well, of course not, he doesn't have a physical body!" If I tell them that my prayers go unanswered, they will respond, "that's because God has a reason for not answering your prayers right away!" An ad hoc hypothesis for every argument.
If belief in a deity is considered just as valid as non-belief, then belief in my magic ball is as valid as non-belief.
If you were to be able to see me right now, you might say, "you are not holding a ball, your hands are empty". That is because this is an invisible ball, and you cannot see it with your bare eyes.
You may reach into my hands, feel nothing but air, and ask me, "if you are indeed holding an invisible ball, why can't I feel it? Why is my hand going right through it?"
You being unfamiliar with the ball, I'd have to explain to you that this ball cannot be felt due to the strange properties of its atoms.
This ball also cannot be detected by radar, because radio waves go right through it rather than bouncing off. It cannot be detected by infrared, X-ray, ultraviolet, gamma or microwave detecting devices for similar reasons. No known wavelength of the electromagnetic radiation spectrum has interacted with this ball in a way that anyone on Earth can observe with current technology.
The unknown substance or substances that the ball is made of do not seem to react with any other known substance.
My magic ball is odourless. Even as I bounce it against my wall, it is soundless. It has no discernible taste.
It is highly compressible and can become a point mass if placed in an area of limited space.
Nonetheless, the ball exists. While I cannot prove it, I am sure of it. If you beg to differ on the subject of the existence of my magic ball, that is perfectly fine, but remember, unless you find a way to disprove the existence of my magic ball, my belief that the ball exists is just as valid as your belief that it doesn't and both of our beliefs have the same level of plausibility.
If you develop a new method of detection and still cannot detect my ball, then it is possible that your invention is simply not advanced enough for the task.
I will spend the next few hours playing with my magic ball.
Now, most reasonable people would tell me that my claims of a magic undetectable ball are ludicrous and would not believe them. Even if they could not disprove the existence of the ball because of my numerous ad hoc qualifications, the onus would not be on them to disprove my ball, but rather on me to prove it because I am the one who made the claim.
As Bertrand Russell illustrated with his hypothetical teapot, the burden of proof lies on whoever is making the new positive claim and not whoever is refuting it, because any claim could shield itself from repudiation by being careful to add enough ad hoc hypotheses.
If not for this, if I were to maintain that leprechauns indeed do exist, I could come up with countless reasons why we have not seen evidence of them. Leprechauns are much smarter than humans and can avoid detection. Leprechauns simply do not want to be found by us, so we will never find them. To this date, there hasn't been conclusive evidence that leprechauns do not exist.
Using enough ad hoc hypothesis would render my leprechaun claim unfalsifiable and unverifiable. In terms of reasoning and logic, unsupported unfalsifiable or unverifiable claims are generally not considered valid or scientific because they are impossible to test or observe.
When asked by theists why I do not hold their beliefs in a deity, I usually respond that there is simply not enough proof of the existence of any sort of god to convince me. Too many times, they will respond with "Well, you don't have any proof that there is no god, so your position isn't any more justified than mine."
But claims of the existence of a deity are impossible to disprove. There is no onus on me to disprove them in order to justify my position. It is on the theists to provide evidence for their position, which they are yet to do.
If I tell them that I cannot see god, they say, "well, of course not, he doesn't have a physical body!" If I tell them that my prayers go unanswered, they will respond, "that's because God has a reason for not answering your prayers right away!" An ad hoc hypothesis for every argument.
If belief in a deity is considered just as valid as non-belief, then belief in my magic ball is as valid as non-belief.
No comments:
Post a Comment