Difference between revisions of "Essay:What has not been proven is not always disproven"

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
({{essay|ConservapediaUndergroundResistor}})
Line 1: Line 1:
−
{{essay|ConservapediaUndergroundResistor}}
+
What has not been proven is not necessarily disproven. Something most certainly cane be proven or disproven, but lack of evidence does not translate into something not being true. A lot of this basically follows Occam's Razor (guaranteed to shave off half of the psuedoscience on your chin!).
−
There are three parts to the 'Divine Trinity:' religion, philosophy, and spirituality. I expect flack from <s>Susan</s> Toast over this. It is with this essay that I annouce my entrance into the Nag of Four. You need me, now that TOP's gone. Unless you want a Nag of Three.
 
  
 +
==Proven==
  
−
==Religion==
+
When something is proven, it is showed to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. If something is proven, then in the world of science, you factor it into your equations.
−
Religion, as we know, is the belief in sky faeries. It cannot be proved or disproved. Certain ideas set forth by religion, such as a virgin birth, can be disproved, but the existance of a metaphysical entity cannot be proved or disproved. Actually, it could be proved, but not disproved. Right now it is in limbo. Moving on, as we have better things to do.
 
  
−
==Religion and science==
+
Things that have been proven:
 +
*evolution
 +
*gravity
 +
*black holes
 +
*light
 +
*stars
 +
*myself
 +
*yourself, hopefully
  
−
Religion and science are not incompatible, as long as religion clearly labels itself as such and not science. Once one claims their beliefs are scientific, or are so convinced in them that they try to convert others, need a little dose of rationality. As evidence that a scientist can be religious, I offer you Stephen J. Gould. Dawkins isn't everything. In fact, I challenge him to come over here and debate me! I feel very safe saying this because he won't come here. Prove me wrong. If this was Wikipedia, he'd come straight away, but his admirer (Toast) doesn't exactly have his ear, dispite her wishes. And yes Toast, after several incidents with me, you deserved that slap with a trout.
+
===Evolution===
  
−
==Philosophy==
+
A case in point: evolution, through numerous experiments, is true beyond a reasonable doubt. There is always the extremely unlikely possibility that something was influencing the experiment, but we can say with a fair amount of certainty that it is true.
  
−
Philosophy is generally understood to be a set of ethics and speculation about the purpose of life. For example, for me, the purpose of life is making the planet better. Humanism might be called a philosophy.
 
  
−
===Philosophy and science===
+
==Not proven==
−
The two aren't incompatible in any way, as philosophy does not make statements about the real world.
 
  
−
==Spirituality==
+
Something that is not proven has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Examples are provided below.
  
−
Spirituality is the speculation of a person's mind. This mind in spirituality is often called the soul, aura, or what have you. For example, part of stereotyped Native American spirituality that is most likely incorrect *waits for confirmation* is the idea that a person is one with nature. Most likely their actual concept was slightly different, but we'll work with this.
+
===Gaining acceptance===
  
−
===Spirituality and science===
+
I do not know of any ideas that are currently gaining acceptance, but I have reason to believe that white holes could be used as an example. White holes are the inverse of black holes. Instead of sucking in matter, they shoot out energy.
  
−
The two are not always incompatible. Parts of spirituality could fall under science, and some parts are neither provable nor disprovable. An example of a part of spirituality that has been confirmed by science is the idea that a person must live in harmony with the environment. This could translate partially to the modern field of ecology.
+
Things that are gaining acceptance:
 +
*white holes
 +
*oscillating universe
  
−
==Balance==
+
===Without evidence for either side===
  
−
A person must have a balance of these things. The three above mentioned things are irrational. A being usually cannot survive on rationality alone, so one must combine the above mentioned things with science. See, ethics could be defined as irrational. At its rawest level, adultry is perfectly rational, as it is the best way to make sure your genes are spread. Since most of us conclude adultry is wrong, we are using the irrational parts of our brains. Irrational does ''not'' mean crazy, inane, or insane. It means not rational, as in not scientific. This causes emotions to fall under irrational, and I don't see anyone taking the Vulcan POV.
+
A good example of this would be the existence of a striped anolis lizard. There is no evidence for such a creature, but no particular reason that one couldn't exist.
 +
 
 +
In addition, if there is a phenomenon, but one cannot explain it, then it usually falls under here. Out of body experiences, from what I have heard, as a case in point (I will remove it if this is not true). While we can say with a fair amount of certainty that someone does not travel outside their body, people do feel this way, and there must be a scientific explanation. If you don't have an explanation, 'I don't know' is a perfectly acceptable answer.
 +
 
 +
Examples of unexplained occurrences:
 +
*out of body experiences
 +
*'talking to god' (delusions usually, but some cannot be explained so easily)
 +
*UFOs (ditto)
 +
 
 +
One does not factor such ideas into an equation, unless it is one of very few solutions.
 +
 
 +
===Discredited===
 +
 
 +
A case in point of something discredited would be telekinesis. While I am not aware of any law of nature which flat out saws it cannot exist, it theoretically could be prohibited. Likewise, it could be an essential law in physics.
 +
 
 +
One rarely should factor a discredited idea into their equations. If, however, an equation gives credit to such an idea, it should be factored in.
 +
 
 +
Discredited ideas:
 +
*2012 apocalypse (actually, a nuclear end of world could very well happen on such a date)
 +
*PJR
 +
 
 +
==Disproven==
 +
 
 +
Something is said to be disproven when we are sure beyond reasonable doubt that it is not true. An example of this would be creation 'science.' Creation 'science' has never managed to cite a piece of evidence that both A) matters and B) stands up to close scrutiny. As such, it should be ignored unless there is not a more likely solution.
 +
 
 +
Disproven ideas:
 +
*ether theory
 +
*astrology
 +
*creation 'science'
 +
*assfly

Revision as of 15:55, 26 March 2009

What has not been proven is not necessarily disproven. Something most certainly cane be proven or disproven, but lack of evidence does not translate into something not being true. A lot of this basically follows Occam's Razor (guaranteed to shave off half of the psuedoscience on your chin!).

Proven

When something is proven, it is showed to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. If something is proven, then in the world of science, you factor it into your equations.

Things that have been proven:

  • evolution
  • gravity
  • black holes
  • light
  • stars
  • myself
  • yourself, hopefully

Evolution

A case in point: evolution, through numerous experiments, is true beyond a reasonable doubt. There is always the extremely unlikely possibility that something was influencing the experiment, but we can say with a fair amount of certainty that it is true.


Not proven

Something that is not proven has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Examples are provided below.

Gaining acceptance

I do not know of any ideas that are currently gaining acceptance, but I have reason to believe that white holes could be used as an example. White holes are the inverse of black holes. Instead of sucking in matter, they shoot out energy.

Things that are gaining acceptance:

  • white holes
  • oscillating universe

Without evidence for either side

A good example of this would be the existence of a striped anolis lizard. There is no evidence for such a creature, but no particular reason that one couldn't exist.

In addition, if there is a phenomenon, but one cannot explain it, then it usually falls under here. Out of body experiences, from what I have heard, as a case in point (I will remove it if this is not true). While we can say with a fair amount of certainty that someone does not travel outside their body, people do feel this way, and there must be a scientific explanation. If you don't have an explanation, 'I don't know' is a perfectly acceptable answer.

Examples of unexplained occurrences:

  • out of body experiences
  • 'talking to god' (delusions usually, but some cannot be explained so easily)
  • UFOs (ditto)

One does not factor such ideas into an equation, unless it is one of very few solutions.

Discredited

A case in point of something discredited would be telekinesis. While I am not aware of any law of nature which flat out saws it cannot exist, it theoretically could be prohibited. Likewise, it could be an essential law in physics.

One rarely should factor a discredited idea into their equations. If, however, an equation gives credit to such an idea, it should be factored in.

Discredited ideas:

  • 2012 apocalypse (actually, a nuclear end of world could very well happen on such a date)
  • PJR

Disproven

Something is said to be disproven when we are sure beyond reasonable doubt that it is not true. An example of this would be creation 'science.' Creation 'science' has never managed to cite a piece of evidence that both A) matters and B) stands up to close scrutiny. As such, it should be ignored unless there is not a more likely solution.

Disproven ideas:

  • ether theory
  • astrology
  • creation 'science'
  • assfly
Retrieved from "https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Essay:What_has_not_been_proven_is_not_always_disproven&oldid=343717"