Evidence cannot "support" a theory. So what's the point of "demanding evidence" in response to someone asserting a theory?
It doesn't make sense to say that a theory can be supported by evidence. All evidence can do is refute classes of theories. So at best some evidence can refute a huge class of theories leaving a few theories unrefuted, aka supported.
So when someone says "I demand that you present evidence [supporting your theory]," what that really means is "I demand that you present evidence that refutes *all* other possible theories, leaving just one theory, the one that you're asserting is true."
Note that its impossible to refute *all* other possible theories, because that's an infinite set, and we only have finite time. So its a demand that is impossible to satisfy.
In other words, ideas are innocent until proven guilty. And demanding evidence in response to someone asserting a theory means believing that ideas are guilty until proven innocent.
On a tangent, someone said: "We cannot, nor are we ever called upon to prove a negative."
Me: "I agree that we cannot prove a negative. What I'm saying is that we also cannot prove a positive."
Join the discussion group or email comments to firstname.lastname@example.org
Back to Let's start from the beginning