It looks like the value of evidence and what evidence means has become obscured now that the fools (atheists) have taken over science.
The fools (atheists) have tried to trick people into believing such lies as:
– “Lack of evidence indicates that a claim is false”
– “Absence of evidence is evidence of absence”
– “Assuming that things are false until proven true is valid”
– “You can’t prove a negative”
– “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”
Now to debunk these claims:
Claim: “Lack of evidence indicates that a claim is false”
Correct Claim: “Contradictory evidence indicates that a claim is false”
Claim: “Absence of evidence is evidence of absence”
Correct Claim: “Contradictory evidence is evidence of absence”
Claim: “Assuming that things are false until proven true is valid”
Correct Claim: “Assuming that things are false because of contradictory evidence is valid”
In order to falsify these statements we can just point out counterexamples:
– Everything proven to exist or be true in modern science now lacked evidence in the past
– Unproven mathematical theorems of the past
If a mere lack of evidence indicates that a claim is false then we should expect everything in modern science to be false since everything in modern science lacked evidence during the time-period that it lacked empirical testability.
There was no shred of evidence for everything in modern science now from the heliocentric theory, atoms, quarks, black holes, electromagnetism, General Relativity, Newtonian gravity, and so on during the time-period that these things lacked empirical testability.
So this completely falsifies the reasoning that a “lack of evidence” indicates that a claim is false.
Many theories and hypotheses have been falsified in science with contradictory evidence, not a mere ‘lack of evidence’.
So what’s contradictory evidence? It’s just evidence that contradicts a claim.
Contradictory evidence can only exist if a hypothesis is empirically testable, so evidence is only relevant if a hypothesis is empirically testable.
Claim: “You can’t prove a negative”
Correct Claim: “You can prove a negative”
In mathematics and logic it’s easy to prove a negative, just use a proof by contradiction or counterexamples. There are lots of negative proofs that exist.
Here’s an example, a negative statement: “There is no such thing as the greatest odd integer” can easily be proven by using a proof by contradiction.
You can prove a negative by falsifying a positive, like if someone claims “Every odd integer is prime” then using a counterexample like the integer 9 you would prove the statement “Not every odd integer is prime” true.
In science it’s easy to prove a negative or positive statement as long as it’s an empirically testable statement, just use a proof by contradiction, counterexamples, or rephrase the negative statement into a positive statement.
Here’s an example:
– To prove that acupuncture does not work use a proof by contradiction (assume the hypothesis that “acupuncture does work” then arrive at contradictory data for that hypothesis)
– To prove that acupuncture does not work rephrase the negative statement into a positive statement then prove it (prove that “acupuncture is indistinguishable from a placebo effect” or that “acupuncture is useless in treating anything”)
So we can easily see that you can prove negative mathematically and scientifically (as long as the hypothesis is empirically testable).
Of course it’s important to remember that it’s impossible to prove or disprove any empirically untestable claim.
Claim: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”
Correct Claim: “Extraordinary claims require the regular standards of evidence”
This statement is very common in the media and elsewhere, but it’s merely an argument from personal incredulity.
Basically what this statement is saying is if a claim pushes your incredulity you would somehow need different standards of evidence to believe. But history and science tells us that using your incredulity to determine whether or not a hypothesis is true or false is an invalid methodology that would give highly inaccurate data. Basically everything in modern science might push anyone’s incredulity!
In science things require the same standards of evidence and proof regardless of how much they might or might not push someone’s subjective incredulity.
Requiring different standards of evidence because of incredulity is invalid because incredulity is something subjective (and not objectively measurable) and what tells us what reality is like isn’t incredulity but empirical observation.
Reality behaves the way it does regardless of human incredulity.
If anyone disagrees with anything I’ve said feel free to criticize, scrutinize, or question me. Unlike the fools (atheists) who strongly strongly discourage criticism and scrutiny of any claim they personally agree with by subjectively interpreting any type of criticism as “trolling” I encourage and invite criticism, this is because if a statement really is true then it would stand up to any amount of criticism. So the more people criticize, scrutinize, and question things the closer we come towards the truth.
– A mere lack of evidence by itself tells us nothing about if a hypothesis is true or false
– Contradictory evidence indicates that a claim is false
– Supporting evidence indicates that a claim is true
– Supporting and contradictory evidence can only exist if a hypothesis is empirically testable
– Evidence can only be relevant if a hypothesis is empirically testable