posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 12:18 PM
In this thread I want to examine the correct, and most logically sound position to have on unexplained and/or unproven phenomena, concepts and
That description could cover a number of subjects that are discussed on ATS; extra terrestrials, ghosts, psychic abilities, deities, alien visitation,
cryptozoological animals, even Santa Claus.
The following is my view on what the most logical position to hold is:
Many people believe something to be true, without categorical material or empirical evidence to back up their belief.
There is nothing wrong with this, and there are a number of valid reasons as to why people come to these beliefs, but from a purely impartial,
objective standpoint, it is illogical to believe in something without corroborative data and evidence to support it.
On the other hand, there are many people that believe that something doesn't exist because there is no evidence to support it, such as ''I'm sure
that ghosts don't exist''. This is patently illogical, as it is the Argumentum ad Ignorantiam logical fallacy.
In fact, due to the fact that it's impossible to prove a negative in most cases, it is illogical to believe that any posited concept doesn't exist,
within reason ( For example, I can prove that there are no monkeys in my bedroom ).
Thinking that something doesn't exist because it sounds preposterous or ludicrous is also clearly illogical, as it's the Argument from incredulity
So, it's illogical to believe in a premise without any evidence to support it, but at the same time it's illogical to disbelieve in just about any
posited idea or concept.
Logically, how open minded should you be towards any proposition ?
I suggest that someone has to be equally open-minded on everything.
One of the things that irritates me is when you see someone attempting to argue from a logical standpoint, yet mix up their own personal belief with
their comments, such as:
''I don't think it's very likely that aliens have visited earth'' or ''I'm 99% certain that bigfoot doesn't exist''.
Those above comments are entirely personal belief, and are no different to someone saying: ''I'm 99% sure that bigfoot exists''.
There's no likelihood, percentages or probabilities involved in something's existence/non-existence.
Bigfoot, for example, is either 100% true or 100% false. You can never find out whether it's 100% false, and you'll never know whether it's 100%
true until there's empirical and indisputable evidence to support it.
Therefore, I consider the correct, logical position on any posited concept is to have no bias whatsoever in the possibility of the said concept
I'd like to sum up by giving the example of Santa Claus:
There is no evidence to support Santa Claus' existence.
We can't say that Santa Claus doesn't exist, based on this lack of evidence.
We can't say that he doesn't exist because ''it's preposterous, and he's only a character to please children''.
We can't say that it's 99.999999% certain that he doesn't exist, because that makes no sense whatsoever.
It seems that one's logical position on the existence of Santa Claus should be non-committal and unbiased.
Neither favouring his existence or not.
Even so I personally believe that Santa Claus doesn't exist, surely my disbelief is as illogical as a child believing in him ?
What do you think ?
Is this the correct and logical position to have on any unproven ideas, concepts or phenomena ?
Am I completely off the mark ?
Have I over-simplified or made erroneous conclusions ?
I'd be interested to hear any input from other people on this.