There's a theory that says if you have an invisible dog sitting on a counter, then it must be true because you can't see it. And that is supposed to be proof that the invisible dog exists.
It's an invisible dog.... You can't see it. Ergo, it must be there.
2006-06-28 11:10:09 · 10 answers · asked by smutulator 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Physics
No. It would only be proof of his invisibility.
It's not a proof of his existence.
2006-06-28 16:40:42 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
if you had an invisible dog - you-d have an invisible dog
you having it -would be the proof of his existence.
fact that i cant see him would be the proof of my inability
to see it.
"you can't see it" doesn't mean it is there
it means you cant see it
it is where you tell me he is if you know where dog is, or if you could see it
if nobody on the world could see it, then it would be the proof of his existence somewhere on the world (if it is known that there is an invisible dog on earth!)
but what if the dog dies and nobody can see he is gone.
ones inability to see the corpse - could it be the proof that dog existed?
we couldn't know if it is live or dead hence the cliff idea is deeper than it seems
or it is just improperly formulated question
like the old one- if the korint guy says all people of korint are liars
does he liyng or he is telling the truth?
2006-06-28 13:30:03 · answer #2 · answered by opaklik400 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes it exists, if only in your mind. But, just because something exists, as a thought, does not give it substance. Hence it is not necessarily there. That is not to say that there is not an invisible dog sitting on a counter, there may be, but, would it not have to have other attributes of existence such as: takes up space, has mass, needs feeding, bad doggy breath, others think it exist, etc? To say, that just because you think something is there that it, in fact, is there is not very realistic.
As for myself, if I could think something into existence it would not be an invisible dog.
2006-06-28 11:39:34 · answer #3 · answered by mike53153 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Simple Test: You're talking about empiricism, measuring what you can, or can't, see. I have a theory, but in order for it to become truth in the sciences, I need statistical validity. Basically, if I say all ducks are brown, I need to prove that this is the case at least 95 times out of 100 to get statistical validity, and therefore for my theory to be true.
Get 100 people and ask them the question. Count up your answers, if 5 people disagree, you thoery is oly a theory. Better yet, get 1000 people, then you have to get 50 people to disagree with you.
2006-06-28 12:19:01 · answer #4 · answered by phantaszjia 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not necessarily. There are a lot of things that we consider to be invisible that actually there. But, we have proof of the effects they have on us and other object. Take wind for example. You can't technically see it, but you can feel it and see the effects is has on weather and trees, etc. I think if you could feel it, that would be proof.
2006-06-28 11:17:34 · answer #5 · answered by q2003 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, we forgot to tell you that your invisible dog fell off the side of a cliff ... gravity (something else I can't see-touch-or smell) took him away and the dog did not survive!!!
So sorry dude, my condolences.
2006-06-28 11:14:49 · answer #6 · answered by Giggly Giraffe 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That dog better make some miracles, otherwise I won't beleive he exists.
2006-06-28 12:48:48 · answer #7 · answered by hkwhkw n 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So do the people in the asylum. Why are they there? Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they aren't there.
2006-06-28 11:20:09 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. You will have to prove that the dog is there. There are many ways to prove that.
2006-06-28 11:26:33 · answer #9 · answered by fcob 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no it wouldn't
2006-06-28 11:13:48 · answer #10 · answered by Pandora. 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋