Just wondering if I'm the only person who understands the difference between skepticism and selective nihilism.
2007-11-28 04:20:32 · 15 answers · asked by Hoosier Daddy 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Of course not.
In fact "proof" is essentially unimportant to the kinds of questions we discuss here (the existence of god and souls, the origin of the universe). What matters is evidence.
2007-11-28 04:23:29 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No.
If that were true all scientific theories would be false.
If a theory can explain all the known relevant facts, then it is used to make predictions. If experiments are designed to test those predictions the theory can either be found to be false (the predictions are wrong) and needs to be reworked in the light of the new information, or not false, in which case the theory gains a little more weight and you then go on to test the next set of predictions.
Do not flatter yourself. Lots of people understand the difference.
However, would you describe someone who claims that unicorns do not exist as:
rational
skeptic
selectively nihilistic
The most accurate is the last, as you can never prove the non-existence of something.
However, most people would go for the first, due to the overwhelming lack of evidence.
2007-11-28 04:31:54 · answer #2 · answered by Simon T 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
So, you want to know if you're the only one here that's been taking those philosophy classes seriously? Don't fret, I bet someone else also knows the difference; Nietzhe is quite popular in most colleges.
And about the top question; no, they're not identical, there's a lot of different letters in them.
2007-11-28 04:26:22 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No they are not the same.
It is not proven = not enough evidence to prove.
It is proven false = The evidence has proven it false.
2007-11-28 04:26:37 · answer #4 · answered by Wolf's Mate 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm with you on that. O.J killing Nicole was not proven does not mean it was proven false.
2007-11-28 04:25:47 · answer #5 · answered by dubc1976 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, they are not the same at all.
"Not proven" still admits a possibility.
"Proven false" admits no possibility.
2007-11-28 04:25:02 · answer #6 · answered by Jewel 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
WOW you must be the smartest person on the planet.
2007-11-28 04:23:17 · answer #7 · answered by Rick T 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Of course not.
2007-11-28 04:27:59 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Like your "fancy" wording, however, just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
2007-11-28 04:24:06 · answer #9 · answered by loveChrist 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No. They're different ideas.
2007-11-28 04:23:43 · answer #10 · answered by Little Red Hen 2.0 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋