My point is that the burden of proof lies in the middle, not on one side or the other.
If I claim to believe the tooth fairy is real does the burden of proof rest with me, the person claiming that a magical being exists or with everyone else who go with boring old reality?
Does it rest in the middle where everyone should half accept my unsupported, unproven and completely made up claim and assume it to probably be true until proven otherwise?
Or should the weight be on me to first produce evidence of a magical being appearing to collect teeth.
Dowsing has not been disproven.
Despite many many attempts nobody has ever been able to demonstrate it in a double blind test.
If a dowser can't so much as locate a bucket of water or anything else whatsoever in the room bellow without being able to see it then it's a good indication that they don't have magical powers.
My issue with the comic is simply that it left out checkmarks.
it most certainly did, my issue is that whill it did it's a poorly thought out, poorly researched comic.
It's completely illogical to dismiss the possibility that dowsing gives companies an edge--if they didn't think it was giving them an edge, they wouldn't be using it.
Just for argument sake it could be giving them an edge, not because it works better but because it simply works the same or a little worse but faster.
instead of spending months arsing around to get an educated guess you spend days playing with coathangers to get an educated guess.
inconclusive experiments of a questionable nature.
They might be using magic fariy dust, the mere fact that any experiments done have shown zero proof of the existence of the tooth fairy means nothing!
but kept it going for 20 years for the fun of it?
I know the government has a reputation for stupidity, but there are limits.
They also kept using the cavalry charge long after the invention of the repeating rifle even when it was clear it didn't work.
Did they do that just for the fun of it?
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former"
I'm also going to ask for some citations.
There is absolutely no reason to believe they did not do so. It's all classified, so we cannot actually be sure unless we have clearance. This means you cannot be sure they aren't using it right now, just as I cannot be completely sure that they are.
We also can't be sure they're not developing an invisible unicorn cavalry unit.
It's all classified, so we cannot actually be sure unless we have clearance.
This means you cannot be sure they aren't using it right now, just as I cannot be completely sure that they are.
It's not good enough for the majority of evidence to support something if it doesn't ALL support it.
Is there anything whatsoever which you believe to be false at all?
I have no idea why people are so terrified of the term 'inconclusive'.
By your defintion every study, every test, everything that has ever been done ever is 'inconclusive' since you can never proove anything to absolutely 100%.
I'll settle for 99.99% confidence.
You're so used to taking sides--'metaphysical phenomena do not exist' versus 'metaphysical phenomena exist'. I'm saying, neither side actually knows that, and anyone who claims to is operating on faith, pure and simple.
So all the trials, test etc etc etc etc are allllll just a waste of time then?
There are no absolute statements that can be made from it.
Yes there have been trillions of trials done every day, indeed every moment but that doesn't mean gravity is real.
There's a finite chance that things stick to the planet by random chance.
We can draw NO CONCLUSIONS WHATSOEVER!
All those opponents of the no-gravity hypothesis are just going on faith.
In fact, I would wager you have never seen a bit of data on that at all.
I'd bet you haven't either.
that does not mean it cannot work with different people in different circumstances
just because gravity appears to work with specific people in specific situations doesn't mean it's real. with different people in different circumstances you might just float off.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.