This is not a debate ground in which one can actually debate, therefore it's pointless to try. In order to have a logical debate one must have standards of agreement and so on and so forth and the debate progresses (or not) from there.
_()_
2007-01-21 05:03:48
·
answer #1
·
answered by vinslave 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
To clarify the difference between a positive hypothesis and a null hypothesis, here is an example:
Positive hypothesis: "Fairies exist."
Null hypothesis: "Fairies do not exist."
Science works by assuming the null hypothesis until it can be falsified. This works well enough because it's fairly easy to catch errors: For the time being, we assume fairies don't exist. It's easier, since proving the non-existence of fey beings would require searching all of time and space (assuming we could get around their invisibility spells and so forth) and not finding any. This would be a massive waste of resources, especially since we'd have to investigate goblins, demons, and who knows what else.
Assume for the moment fairies do exist. We'd be able to revise our knowledge if one much simpler condition is met: Someone demonstrates one fairy under proper conditions. That would override any negative results from an unnecessary search of the universe. And that's what makes science great: It's easier to prove something with one simple demonstration, rather than a universe-spanning refutation.
Hopefully, that covers the whole "Burden of proof" issue.
2007-01-21 06:14:53
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's impossible to prove anything to a degree of 100% certaintly. But if they have existed for such a long time, I would assume that one would have been captured, irrefutably photographed/recorded, and corpses/remains would have been discovered, and revealled so that the entire world could behold them. If they are living beings like us then they would have evolved to be a similar way, so their bodies/skeletons would not just disappear, nor would they be able to live forever and perform 'fairy magic'.
Who knows maybe they are master hypnotists, and if you see one they can convince you that you didn't actually see anything..
:-P
They DON'T exist damnit! lol
2007-01-21 05:07:09
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I can't prove anything about fairies unless you define the exact properties of a fairy. If you're willing to do so, we may be able to prove that their existence would define certain known laws of the universe, thus proving, within the limits of reason, that they do not exist.
2007-01-21 05:24:56
·
answer #4
·
answered by marbledog 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I actually somewhat believe in fairies, lol. I'm not going to rule them out as a possibility at least. Every culture on Earth has some fairy lore to it, and I don't think that's a coincidence.
Blessed Be.
2007-01-21 05:14:10
·
answer #5
·
answered by Maria Isabel 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Inductive logic does not provide "proof", only levels of certainty. With no evidence for fairies, and considerable time for such evidence to emerge, it seems highly unlikely that they exist, and it becomes the stance of scinece (based on induction) that they do not.
2007-01-21 05:37:27
·
answer #6
·
answered by neil s 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
PROVE "fairies?"
The VERNACULAR has now been changed "To Gays!"
IS that the Proof you NEED?
Thanks, RR
2007-01-21 05:06:07
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋