On Fri, 30 May 2008 19:17:40 -0400, Cory Albrecht wrote:
> Danwood wrote:
>> "dozr" <noemails@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:J_aMj.2147$vz2.1611@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> hahahaha you believe in an imaginary friend.... how old are you 4?
>>>
>>> people who believe in god:
>>> crazy
>>> children
>>> stupid
>>> sheep(they call priest Sheppard's and his followers a flock for a
>>> reason)
>>>
>>> trust me there is no god(s). just immoral people leeching money from
>>> scared idiots that believe that there is some all knowing invisible
>>> guy telling them what they can and can't do.
>>>
>>> PROVE ME WRONG.
>>>
>> Prove _you_ wrong?? You made the unsup****ted claim! The burden of proof
>> rest on the shoulders of the claimant.
>
> Actually, the null hypothesis is that something with no evidence for it
> does not exist.
By this reasoning, until there was evidence for the electron, the
electron did not exist, then *spung* magically popped into existence, out
of nothing at all, exactly at the time the evidence became available.
Since that's obviously absurd, the assertion "does not exist" must be in
error.
A more correct formulation would be "The null hypothesis is that
something with no evidence for it is treated as if it does not exist" -
thus we do not pay any attention whatsoever to electrons, or gods, or
pixies, unless and until evidence demands otherwise, but we do not
actively deny the possibility, as this would require us to invoke magic
to explain the sudden change from non-existence to existence.
|
