Hm. Quite a lot of straw men there, such as "I don't believe physicists know everything that can possibly be known". Who does think that?
You choose to start from the premise that only the physical is real
Depending on your definition of "physical": yes.
The reason I explained the qualifier is that customarily, when dealing with nonscientists, the use of expressions like "almost certainly" is immediately seized upon as a weakness or loophole. I realize that you understand this too (your expression "resembling proof" recognizes that science doesn't do proofs, only law courts think they do, and we all know how well that sometimes turns out). However, others may read this conversation who're not aware of that truism.
What I'm saying is that the onus is on those who believe in the existence of something that seems physically impossible to explain how that can be so, or at the very least to make the effort.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2011-05-30 04:33 pm (UTC)Hm. Quite a lot of straw men there, such as "I don't believe physicists know everything that can possibly be known". Who does think that?
You choose to start from the premise that only the physical is real
Depending on your definition of "physical": yes.
The reason I explained the qualifier is that customarily, when dealing with nonscientists, the use of expressions like "almost certainly" is immediately seized upon as a weakness or loophole. I realize that you understand this too (your expression "resembling proof" recognizes that science doesn't do proofs, only law courts think they do, and we all know how well that sometimes turns out). However, others may read this conversation who're not aware of that truism.
What I'm saying is that the onus is on those who believe in the existence of something that seems physically impossible to explain how that can be so, or at the very least to make the effort.