"It doesn't exist" is a shorthand for "There is insufficient evidence for it or against it, and it has minimal explanatory power, and it's not amenable to proof or disproof, so your life will be simpler if you assume it doesn't exist."
This, at least, is the attitude that many people have to ghosts, gods, and werewolves.
Your argument is still circular. What do you think proof and disproof mean in this context? Why don't you think that materialism suffers from the same flaws?
This is why scientists make bad philosophers. They do not acknowledge the boundaries of their philosophy.
I always thought that "it doesn't exist" means "we have a test which would prove that it does exist, and it has failed that test." If "it doesn't exist" means "I can't prove it either way and I don't think it matters," what category is left for phlogiston?
Comments
"It doesn't exist" is a shorthand for "There is insufficient evidence for it or against it, and it has minimal explanatory power, and it's not amenable to proof or disproof, so your life will be simpler if you assume it doesn't exist."
This, at least, is the attitude that many people have to ghosts, gods, and werewolves.
Your argument is still circular. What do you think proof and disproof mean in this context? Why don't you think that materialism suffers from the same flaws?
This is why scientists make bad philosophers. They do not acknowledge the boundaries of their philosophy.
This is the difference between science and scientism.
Science is an extremely powerful and well-proven set of tools for learning about the natural world. Scientism is a crock of baloney.
I always thought that "it doesn't exist" means "we have a test which would prove that it does exist, and it has failed that test." If "it doesn't exist" means "I can't prove it either way and I don't think it matters," what category is left for phlogiston?