21 Dec '08 10:40>4 edits
Originally posted by Jigtie…I have said nothing of the sorts,.…
I have said nothing of the sorts, my overly upset little friend.
True; but what you appear to be saying is that it is not a “fact” that it isn’t true that hominids lived 65 million years ago and this is where we disagree.
When most people judge a hypothesis about reality to have a less than, say, one in a hundred billion chance of being true, when they use everyday English, they say they are “certain” that the hypothesis is false and they may also say it is a “fact” that the hypothesis is false because, for all practical purposes, it may be (depending on the reasoning or evidence). But if you insist that if there is even a less than a one in a hundred billion uncertainty in a hypothesis then it couldn’t be categorised as a “fact” then that would mean there are no “facts” about reality because, for example, ‘for all we know‘, the whole of reality is an illusion that is designed to make us think the Earth is round when in fact the Earth is shaped like a laughing monkey doing finger gestures etc and this will even apply to any hypothesis that have substantial number of observations that ‘support’ it (the observations could just be all part of the illusion).
I think one of the fundamental problem with your thinking is that you assume that if an existential hypothesis about reality is not either confirmed or disproved by any observation then there is still a ‘credible’ chance (say, more than one in a hundred billion chance) that it could be true?
-if so, taking that logic to extremes, that would mean you should think that there is a ‘credible’ chance that there is a Santa and also that there is an invisible magical elephant exactly 100 meters above your head right now because neither hypothesis could ever be “disproved” by any specific observation in practice.
Do you think that you could rationally believe that you should assign a less than, say, one in a hundred billion chance of there being an invisible magical elephant exactly 100 meters above your head right now despite the fact that there is no observation that currently disproves this?
If so, why not extend the same logic when you are judging how certain you should be that there where hominids at the time of the dinosaurs?