By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
o_O.Q said:
curl-6 said:

At any point we can only go with the best information we have at the time, and the best method for attaining that is one which is empirical for the simple reason of practicality; if something can be proven to be true, that obviously trumps just assuming it's true,

And no, I wouldn't classify it that way, I'd classify it as the assumption of the existence of something for which there's no scientific basis.

"At any point we can only go with the best information we have at the time"

yes that's my point, but as we grow and learn our paradigm changes because we incorporate more knowledge into our understanding

"if something can be proven to be true"

nothing can really be proven to be true though, we make the assumption based on repetition

"And no, I wouldn't classify it that way, I'd classify it as the assumption of the existence of something for which there's no scientific basis"

if our science can't classify or measure something, how could you argue that there is a scientific basis for it?

If something cannot be quantified or demonstrated, if no empirical evidence exists to substantiate it, then I personally see no reason to believe it exists until such time, if ever, that it can be empirically demonstrated. 

That's just me. I'm a natural skeptic I guess.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 15 August 2019