|
The exchange going on between Infinite_Loser and willravel is an interesting illustration of precisely the problem that the OP was trying to resolve. I'm inclined to agree with RB that these arguments go around and around with nothing being said; the positions taken by the posts say far more about their authors than about the thing that is being discussed.
The disagreement seems to me to be about how to 'know' (scientifically) when there is no means to know scientifically (i.e. no evidence), a question whose answer can only be absurd and cannot say very much.
For my own part I'm inclined to come down with willravel on this, not least beacuse I find Infinite_Loser's formulation ('Since your standard is evidence and mine only faith, we can evaluate our respective claims by different standards') fairly incoherent.
|