🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <73642@hydra.gatech.EDU> cegtitd@prism.gatech.EDU (Tim Dodd) writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.182157.17016@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU+ crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>+In article <1992Nov4.171314.22145@ugle.unit.no+ kim@Lise.Unit.NO (Kim Gunnar Stvringyhus) writes:
>+++      Why do certain people have such difficulty with the proposition
>+++      that there are domains which 'science' and 'logic' can never reach?
>+++                                 dale bass
>++Because it's a false proposition.
>+
>+     Prove it false.
>+
>+                             dale bass
>
>Ah, this is backwards here!  If I claim that "X exists", and you say you
>see no evidence for X, the burden of proof lies upon me, not you.  I have
>no problem with the proposition that there are domains unreachable by rational
>thought.  (Suppose I ask you what it is like to be nonexistent?)  But I am
>unconvinced that such domains have anything to say about reality (by
>definition!).

     It is not backwards.  Where the burden of proof lies is a matter
     of taste, especially in propositions that are not provable.  You may
     well claim that 'X exists', but you will never be able to 
     'prove' X's existence.

     As far as 'reality' goes, if you may define it as you wish,
     just don't expect everybody else to share the definition, especially
     outside of science.

                             dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926