Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
How do you scientifically test a hypothesis that something does not exist? It's not possible, as you pointed out earlier.
|
I don't see any problem with a theory being a negative, nor proving it. That is to say, I see the same problem with proving it as with anything else.
If !A (not A) is true, then A is false. Any negative statement can be expressed as a positive, if a convoluted one (A is false, that is to say, every single possible set of variable could be true, except those sets in which A is true).
You did hit the nail on the head though, I was in a round about way saying that knowing and believing are the same thing. I'm of the school of thought (and it's been so long, I've forgotten what it's called) that you can't ever know anything absolutely (except that I exist, as the bomb rightly points out). As such, using the word "know" means "I really really really think this is correct", that on a scale of certainty, it has passed a threshold.
This illustrates my point nicely, however. We have our own understanding of what words mean. If I say I know something, and explain what I mean, you might think to yourself "ok, so he actually means he 'believes' that". If I say I'm an atheist, and explain what I mean by that, you might label me an Agnostic in your mind.
The point of language is to communicate efficiently. If I tell someone I'm an Atheist who knows there is no God, I think they'll jump to the conclusion about me, that is closer to the truth, than what they would if I said something else.
Think about what you thought of the first person to call themselves a Pearlist. What conclusion did you jump to? Probably not the right one, and they probably had to explain themselves. That's not communicating efficiently.