The tip of the ice berg

[Bungle_Bear]

You mean Sanduleak went supernova 168,000 years ago?

No, what I mean is that if you want to claim "You can have truths without evidence" you need to use unevidenced truths as your examples, not unevidenced facts.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, what I mean is that if you want to claim "You can have truths without evidence" you need to use unevidenced truths as your examples, not unevidenced facts.

Makes you wonder what other truths are out there that are so-far sans evidence, doesn't it?

 

[Astrid]

Seething envy is not evidence. It's hardly a "blind spot" for academia that your endorsement makes a given position less credible... it's years of experience.

One of the patriotic songs of North Korea is about
how "We have nothing to envy"

 

[TLK Valentine]

Makes you wonder what other truths are out there that are so-far sans evidence, doesn't it?

Probably plenty... but your "truth" will never be on that list until you cultivate the desire and/or ability to search for evidence...

 

[Hans Blaster]

You mean Sanduleak went supernova 168,000 years ago?

No. Sanduleak was an astronomer. He wouldn't be born for nearly two millennia after your date of 50 BC.

Sk-69 202 was a star (as yet uncataloged) in 50 BC. It would not explode in our reference frame until 1987.

 

[AV1611VET]

One of the patriotic songs of North Korea is about
how "We have nothing to envy"

From this book?

"'Absurd" is often used as the way to portray the catalysts for such calamities in Nothing to Envy: "Along with rice and corn, soybeans have been banned from the market with the absurd explanation that they might be taken into China and resold to the enemy in South Korea." (p. 287) "The North Korean government offered a variety of explanations, from the patently absurd to the barely plausible." (p. 69) The name of the city where the featured interviewed people originate from, Chongjin, means "clear river crossing", a strictly prohibited act of treason for its residents pertaining to the border between North Korea and China, yet risked by the book's subjects."

SOURCE

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Makes you wonder what other truths are out there that are so-far sans evidence, doesn't it?

There you go again calling facts truths.

 

[BPPLEE]

There you go again calling facts truths.

 

[ruthiesea]

You can have truths without evidence.

In 50 BC, was Neptune a planet? was the Mariana Trench in existence? did SN1987A exist?

Did the exist at that time? Yes.
Did we know of their existence at that time? No.
Until we have evidence of the existence of something it cannot be studied by science. A prime example is a prediction made by Darwin that a particular type of moth existed based on a flower that he was given.
Predictions of future findings are how theories are tested.

 

[AV1611VET]

Until we have evidence of the existence of something it cannot be studied by science.

I understand that; and I respect it too.

But when something doesn't have evidence because no evidence was generated, you can't prematurely say it didn't happen.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Makes you wonder what other truths are out there that are so-far sans evidence, doesn't it?

Well, let's see:

Corresponding truths?
Truths of coherence?
Pragmatic truths?

... Truths about the various ways we try to conceptualize "truth"? ...Oh, make it stop!!!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I understand that; and I respect it too.

But when something doesn't have evidence because no evidence was generated, you can't prematurely say it didn't happen.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

There's another problem, too: "Evidence" is usually [although not always] open to interpretation and is prone to having a variety of decisions made upon it as to how it applies to any of us in practical ways.

 

[Astrid]

Did the exist at that time? Yes.
Did we know of their existence at that time? No.
Until we have evidence of the existence of something it cannot be studied by science. A prime example is a prediction made by Darwin that a particular type of moth existed based on a flower that he was given.
Predictions of future findings are how theories are tested.

Yec predictive science:
Since all species of animals / plants existed
simultaneously, they will be found
in the same strata.

Hence Paluxy man- tracks were mfg to
fulfill the prophecy.

Google Image Result for https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/ancientman/images/1045.jpg

 

[AV1611VET]

Hence Paluxy man- tracks were mfg to
fulfill the prophecy.

If indeed that is the case, then it was done in spite of the Bible, not with respect to It.

 

[driewerf]

Makes you wonder what other truths are out there that are so-far sans evidence, doesn't it?

Truth is only reliable when evidenced.
I could make 100 statements, say of which 50 guaranteed false and 50 guaranteed true. As long as you haven't a way to separate the tru statements from the false, they are all unreliable and hence useless.
That's why science looks for evidence. To separate the chaff from the wheat.

 

[AV1611VET]

Truth is only reliable when evidenced.
I could make 100 statements, say of which 50 guaranteed false and 50 guaranteed true. As long as you haven't a way to separate the tru statements from the false, they are all unreliable and hence useless.
That's why science looks for evidence. To separate the chaff from the wheat.

That can be your downfall as well.

 

[ruthiesea]

I understand that; and I respect it too.

But when something doesn't have evidence because no evidence was generated, you can't prematurely say it didn't happen.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Agreed.

 

[ruthiesea]

Truth is only reliable when evidenced.
I could make 100 statements, say of which 50 guaranteed false and 50 guaranteed true. As long as you haven't a way to separate the tru statements from the false, they are all unreliable and hence useless.
That's why science looks for evidence. To separate the chaff from the wheat.

And why it is subject to change based on new discoveries.

 

[driewerf]

That can be your downfall as well.

Please elaborate about how requiring evidence for statements - especially extraordinary statements - can be my downfall.

 

[AV1611VET]

Please elaborate about how requiring evidence for statements - especially extraordinary statements - can be my downfall.

You'll die and go to Hell waiting to get evidence that God created the universe ex nihilo.

Unless you "see the Light" before it's too late -- and I pray that happens.