[QUOTE=davar55;314390]So these arbitrary claims CAN be disproven, by the logic of the
challenge to the claim.[/QUOTE]No. You can never prove that flying yellow unicorns [i]don't[/i] live on the Moon. But what you are free to do is to ignore any such claims until it is proven positive that they [i]do[/i] exist.

It is easy to make all sorts of claims that are impossible to prove false. Why waste time even tying to prove them false when it is more efficient to simply ignore them until the claimant shows proof?

[QUOTE=retina;314395]No. You can never prove that flying yellow unicorns [I]don't[/I] live on the Moon. But what you are free to do is to ignore any such claims until it is proven positive that they [I]do[/I] exist.

It is easy to make all sorts of claims that are impossible to prove false. Why waste time even tying to prove them false when it is more efficient to simply ignore them until the claimant shows proof?[/QUOTE]

The kind of claims you are referring to are arbitrary claims of existence
or non-existencce of something or other. And I agree that one is free
to ignore such. But they can be proven false, on the basis of their
nature as arbitrary, i.e. without definition or evidence. This goes
for (f y u on the m), hence that would imply (no f y u on the m).

[QUOTE=davar55;314398]The kind of claims you are referring to are arbitrary claims of existence
or non-existencce of something or other. And I agree that one is free
to ignore such. But they can be proven false, on the basis of their
nature as arbitrary, i.e. without definition or evidence. This goes
for (f y u on the m), hence that would imply (no f y u on the m).[/QUOTE]Your basis for disproof is flawed. Just because something is arbitrary does not mean is it false. Even paranoid people have enemies. Also the judgement of arbitrariness is subjective and thus could not be part of any proof.

I still say you cannot prove there are no flying yellow unicorns living on the Moon.

[QUOTE=retina;314400]
I still say you cannot prove there are no flying yellow unicorns living on the Moon.[/QUOTE]

We can see the moon quite clearly, and there certainly aren't any unicorns (flying, yellow, or otherwise) on it. If you want to be pedantic (rather the point of this thread), there have been satellites (and humans) who've looked at the back of the moon, and no unicorns were observed then. Having thus examined the entire surface of the moon, we can say with certainty that there are no unicorns on the moon.

[QUOTE=davar55;314392]
Science is NOT based on faith by any contrasting definition of reason.
[/QUOTE]

It is based on the faith that logic is "correct" (whatever that means) and that something that has been well-tested and has not been shown false is true (which certainly isn't a logical proof, but we take such truths on faith). Example: no one has ever proven that space is homogeneous (i.e. no location is special); no one has ever proven that the laws of physics don't change with time, etc. . See, e.g., [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_physics#Description"]here[/URL], and note how each description is qualified with "appears to be" or "according to observations".

[QUOTE=davar55;314392]I certainly agree with the fourth statement, and the second.

Science is NOT based on faith by any contrasting definition of reason.

And I think I've been consistent, not self-contradictory. That alone I agree is not enough to prove one right.[/QUOTE]

Sigh...

Science is, by practice, faith based. I asked you before, and I'll ask you again: why do you think Quantum Theory is called a theory?

Here is some additional empirical evidence...

Put any real Scientist into a witness stand, and they will say they believe what they say is true, based on the evidence available to them. But they will always agree they might be wrong, and are always willing to consider new evidence.

One of my favorite exchanges is between two famous thinkers:

Einstein: "God doesn't play dice with the Universe.

Bohr: "Einstein, don't tell God what to do.

[QUOTE=retina;314400]Your basis for disproof is flawed. Just because something is arbitrary does not mean is it false. Even paranoid people have enemies. Also the judgement of arbitrariness is subjective and thus could not be part of any proof.

I still say you cannot prove there are no flying yellow unicorns living on the Moon.[/QUOTE]

No unicorn exists.
Therefore no yellow unicorns exist.
Therefore no flying yellow unicorns exist.
Something living on the moon must exist.
Therefore something living on the moon can't be a flying yellow unicorn.
Therefore no f y u are living on the moon.

Now if you try to remove the arbitrariness of the statement,
you have to define unicorn such that one exists.
But we all agree that unicorns are imaginary.

Arbitrariness implies counter-factual (it can't be true in the positive),
and demonstrating the arbitrariness of something like unicorns,
or goblins, or god, is (I should think) possible.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;314417]We can see the moon quite clearly, and there certainly aren't any unicorns (flying, yellow, or otherwise) on it. If you want to be pedantic (rather the point of this thread), there have been satellites (and humans) who've looked at the back of the moon, and no unicorns were observed then. Having thus examined the entire surface of the moon, we can say with certainty that there are no unicorns on the moon.



It is based on the faith that logic is "correct" (whatever that means) and that something that has been well-tested and has not been shown false is true (which certainly isn't a logical proof, but we take such truths on faith). Example: no one has ever proven that space is homogeneous (i.e. no location is special); no one has ever proven that the laws of physics don't change with time, etc. . See, e.g., [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_physics#Description"]here[/URL], and note how each description is qualified with "appears to be" or "according to observations".[/QUOTE]I'm not sure how much credence you place in the text above. Do you believe the material about the unicorns or are you merely making a rhetorical point?

Just because no-one has [b]yet[/b] seen unicorns, despite a modicum of effort, that isn't proof that they do not exist. Until recently no-one had seen evidence for the existence of a particle with the properties predicted for a Higgs boson. No-one has yet seen any evidence at all for the existence of either the axion or the magnetic monopole or the graviton, despite theoretical arguments that they should exist (or not exist, depending on the theoretician). Do you therefore argue that none of the last three particles exist? Would you have argued a few years ago that the Higgs didn't exist but have now (presumably) changed your mind?

[QUOTE=Dubslow;314417]...
It is based on the faith that logic is "correct" (whatever that means) and that something that has been well-tested and has not been shown false is true (which certainly isn't a logical proof, but we take such truths on faith). Example: no one has ever proven that space is homogeneous (i.e. no location is special); no one has ever proven that the laws of physics don't change with time, etc. . See, e.g., [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_physics#Description"]here[/URL], and note how each description is qualified with "appears to be" or "according to observations".[/QUOTE]

Why elevate faith to the level of logic? "Whatever that means" should
be a spur, not a cop-out (please don't take that harshly). Science may
be qualified by "appears to be", etc., but logic and philosophy (which
is where these questions abide) are even more fundamental than science
and should be even more rigidly examined and understood.

[QUOTE=davar55;314433]But we all agree that unicorns are imaginary.[/QUOTE]

No, we don't.

Please don't tell us what we know.

[QUOTE=chalsall;314418]Sigh...

Science is, by practice, faith based. I asked you before, and I'll ask you again: why do you think Quantum Theory is called a theory?

Here is some additional empirical evidence...

Put any real Scientist into a witness stand, and they will say they believe what they say is true, based on the evidence available to them. But they will always agree they might be wrong, and are always willing to consider new evidence.

One of my favorite exchanges is between two famous thinkers:

Einstein: "God doesn't play dice with the Universe.

Bohr: "Einstein, don't tell God what to do.[/QUOTE]

Quantum Theory came up because it was claimed that QT implied
a non-zero probability for a god's existence, which I challenged.

It's called a Theory (like relativity) because it isn't proven,
in the same sense as the Pythagorean Theorem on the
Euclidean plane IS proven.

[QUOTE=chalsall;314437]No, we don't.

Please don't tell us what we know.[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't DREAM of doing that.