If you can't find 'scientific' evidence that something exists, do you conclude that it does not exist? What do you think of this approach?
by 
Marky Mark
ANSWERS: 23
-
No, I conclude that there's no proof that it exists.
-
I don't feel comfortable dealing in absolutes.
-
Most, if not all scientific evidence, can be demonstrated in mathamatics. That which cannot, in my opinion, is questionable.
-
no, you just keep doing research. the only thing that separates fact from fiction is that fiction hasn't been proven yet.
-
I conclude that no proof has been found, but it is not IMPOSSIBLE to suggest that proof WILL be found. This is why I'm agnostic. Heck, even Santa could exist in my views if the right proof was uncovered!
-
Stupid would be my definition. Just because you could not find something does not mean that it does not exist. Did you hear this week on TV about all of the new-to-us species that were found in some deep water hole,in the ocean? I want to say the Pacific but I don't remember. Those species existed but science had not yet discovered their existence.
-
That approach seems to be as bad as assuming that it does exist. I think that the only conclusion that can be reached when there isn't enough evidence is that "I don't know".
-
If everything is considered according to science,then tell me how will you prove someones intentions?
-
scientists conclude that result exists, only that it does not have proof at present an will find it eventually...happened many times...weird!!
-
If something is claimed to exist there should be some evidence of it. You cannot categorically state it doesn't of course (cannot affirm an unconditional negative etc etc) but without evidence it becomes unlikely it does, especially if you have spent a long time searching for it. If it is a new claim it is a case of waiting until evidence is gathered to support/disprove the hypothesis. String 'theory' is a good example. It makes a great deal of sense but there is no evidence as yet. Therefore it is not really a theory per se, more a hypothesis. I wouldn't say strings don't exist but there is no evidence as yet that they do.
-
I live as if it does not exist, for the lack of evidence is a lack of a reason to assume that it does. To assume something exists when there is no evidence in the affirmative is to bog down one's life with frivolous beliefs.
-
I would say it doesn't exist without proof. However some people might argue that the absence of proof supporting something doesn't mean the presence of proof against it.
-
The way scientific evidences are shown now a days,I'd rather go with my personal observations.
-
I conclude that it still needs to be studied. Carefully, to avoid any hubristic mistakes.
-
No. It's illogical.
-
You cannot say that it does not exist. You can say that there is a strong possibility that it does not exist.
-
Is they any scientific evidence that were in a computer world like the matrix, do things exist, is god a computer programmer.
-
i accept that god is there.because i m follower of Jesus Christ n Mohammad.i have no need of any scientific evidence.
-
Unless you have evidence that it DOESN'T EXIST, you would have to assume that there is still a possibility that it DOES EXIST. However, if circumstances leading up to that truth are not plausabile, then deductive reasoning would also assume that it does not exist. It's like a court case, sometimes the jury doesn't always have ALL the evidence, but deducing whodunnit through reasoning is the best system we have in our arsenal against trying the suspect. Same goes with science. Sometimes science can tell us exactly what something ISN'T and it's up to us to deduce through reasoning what is missing and create a verdict on that issue in our minds.
-
Depending on how you define "scientific evidance" there may not be a whole lot for a person to believe in. I don't think much of it.+5
-
no science made people believe many silly things (with evidence) so i dont agree with that opinion....but if you asked just to rationalize your religious beliefs church made people believe in lunatic crap for centuries, so id prefer science over religion
-
I conclude that there is no evidence that it exists. There is thus no reason to believe that it does or should exist. This is far different that disproving the existence of something.
-
SHALL WE TRY THIS ONE AGAIN?=AS I SAID IF A CERTAIN PIECE OF EVIDENCE DOES'NT EXIST= IN MY OPINION, THERE'S NO SUCH THING.
desotapop 
MrJosh 
Moongrim RELATED QUESTIONS
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC