• Sotuanduso@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    41
    ·
    6 months ago

    The burden of proof tennis is quite tricky here because it’s not about whether you claim something exists, it’s whether you claim something that goes against what’s generally accepted. If I claim quantum mechanics don’t exist, it’s not on you to prove they do.

    And that’s before we get into the fact that there isn’t a general consensus on whether God (or any gods) exist.

    • TheDoozer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Your premise is incorrect. The burden of proof for quantum mechanics is on the people claiming they exist. They provided those proofs, which is why people believe in them. I haven’t studied quantum mechanics, but if you asked somebody who does, they could offer proof or evidence. And if they couldn’t, then your claim it doesn’t exist (until proof was proffered) would be correct.

      • Sotuanduso@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        30
        ·
        6 months ago

        It was on them until society generally accepted it. Now if I claim it doesn’t exist, the burden is on me.

        Or how about this: if I claim dinosaurs never existed and thus the fossils didn’t come from them, it’s not on you to prove they did.

        • TheDoozer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          27
          ·
          6 months ago

          You’re missing the point. It’s not a one time thing. Evidence existed, that evidence was found, and that’s what made it change to being accepted.

          That evidence still exists, so if you claim dinosaurs don’t exist, we can just point to the evidence that still exists. That evidence didn’t get spirited away like golden plates to heaven. We’re still finding dinosaur bones.

          If you claim dinosaurs don’t exist, I would point to the wealth of evidence that they do. If you were raised in some religious cult that never taught anything about dinosaurs and taught that the Earth was 6000 years old, and therefore didn’t think giant creatures existed hundreds of millions of years ago, it would absolutely be on the person claiming they exist to show you dinosaur bones. Which is evidence.

          • Sotuanduso@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            26
            ·
            6 months ago

            I see your point, but the idea here is that, since I’m starting from the assumption that dinosaurs don’t exist, I conclude that the fossils came from some source other than dinosaurs, so they can’t be used as pro-dinosaur evidence. But at the same time I don’t offer an alternative explanation on where they came from.

            • ThanksForAllTheFish@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              6 months ago

              The existence of dinosaurs is well-established through a variety of scientific evidence. Here are some of the key proofs:

              1. Fossil Evidence

              • Bone Fossils: The most compelling evidence for the existence of dinosaurs comes from fossils. These are preserved remains found in sedimentary rocks that have formed from sediments laid down in ancient rivers, lakes, and seas. Dinosaur bones show distinct features, such as air-filled cavities that indicate they were adapted to support massive bodies while being lightweight, similar to modern birds.
              • Tracks and Footprints: Fossilized footprints and tracks give clues about the behavior, movement, and size of these creatures. Sites like the Paluxy River trackways in Texas and others around the world show clear, sequential dinosaur footprints.
              • Egg Fossils: Fossilized eggs have been found in many locations around the world, providing direct evidence of reproduction in dinosaurs. Some nests even contain embryos, which help scientists understand growth and development in these creatures.

              2. Geological Distribution

              • Global Spread: Dinosaur fossils have been found on every continent on Earth, including Antarctica. This widespread geographic distribution is consistent with the known plate tectonics and continental drift over geological time scales, supporting the timeline in which dinosaurs are said to have existed.

              3. Radiometric Dating

              • Age Determination: Radiometric dating methods allow scientists to determine the age of rock layers where dinosaur fossils are found. These methods typically use the decay of naturally occurring isotopes, such as uranium-lead or potassium-argon dating, to establish the age of rocks as ranging from about 66 to over 200 million years old—corresponding to the Mesozoic Era, the time period during which dinosaurs thrived.

              4. Comparative Anatomy and Phylogeny

              • Anatomical Similarities: The study of dinosaur fossils allows scientists to reconstruct their skeletons and infer muscle attachments and body shapes. Comparisons with modern animals can help interpret their posture, diet, and lifestyle.
              • Evolutionary Relationships: Dinosaurs share many features with other groups of vertebrates, especially birds. In fact, modern birds are considered the direct descendants of theropod dinosaurs, a relationship supported by numerous anatomical and genetic data.

              5. Soft Tissue and Molecular Evidence

              • In some rare cases, soft tissues have been preserved in dinosaur fossils. For example, flexible blood vessels and cells have been reported in Tyrannosaurus rex fossils. While controversial and rare, such findings can provide insights into the biology of these ancient creatures.

              6. Paleoenvironmental Reconstructions

              • Contextual Clues: Fossilized plants, pollens, and associated animal fossils found alongside dinosaur remains help reconstruct the environments they lived in, further validating their existence and providing context about the ecosystem dynamics of the past.

              Collectively, these evidences from paleontology, geology, and biology robustly demonstrate that dinosaurs existed as real, living organisms on Earth millions of years ago. Their study continues to provide valuable insights into the history of life on our planet.

                • ThanksForAllTheFish@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  It sounds like you’re taking a skeptical stance towards the conventional interpretation of dinosaur fossils without proposing an alternative hypothesis for their origins. This approach can be useful for critically examining evidence but might limit understanding if alternative explanations aren’t explored. In scientific discourse, it’s typically valuable not only to critique existing theories but also to propose viable alternatives that can be tested and evaluated against the evidence. If the goal is to challenge established views like the existence of dinosaurs, developing a coherent alternative theory on the origin of fossils could strengthen your argument and provide a new perspective for consideration.

                • ThanksForAllTheFish@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  Just to address the chatgpt comments, I assumed you were a troll but I now see that you’re a real person, deserving of a real answer. My standpoint is that science should enhance religion: as they approach different problems, they should be compatible. Science deals with the workings of the natural world and how things happen, while religion often addresses why the world exists and what our purpose might be. For this reason I’m against dismissing scientific discoveries solely due to religious teachings. Some see new discoveries about the universe as enhancing our understanding of God. Just because the bible was written without the understanding we have today doesn’t mean that the progress of all modern knowledge is false. And similarly when specific bible teachings are disproven doesn’t mean that the underlying purpose or values are invalid. In summary, ai think the purpose of religion is to improve society and wellbeing by addressing fears, providing a deep need for community and creating a moral code. I think problems and frictions arrive when, the moral codes develop over time due to new understanding of what is right or fair, and knowledge of the world improves. There are religions that accept that they should change over time and accept these new viewpoints, such as evolution, dinosaurs, or to respect womens rights. There are other hardline religions that believe that the world is 6000 years old, that women have no rights, that dinosaurs are false creatures created by the devil, and that technology is evil and should be avoided. Right now you seem to be leaning towards more hardline standpoints, which can anger some people, as you’ve seen by the down votes. I would encourage you moving forwards to not see new viewpoints and scientific understanding as a challenge to your religion, and instead accept that the world is beautiful and this knew knowledge was a gift to you from God. Gay marriage is legalised, so God accepts that people should be allowed to be happy in themselves, accept that into your religion. Dinosaurs are found and thousands of people work to understand them, God has given those people a gift to work in such an exciting career, accept the gift into your religion. To dismiss knowledge, is to dismiss a gift from God. Ancient wisdom and modern understanding should go hand in hand.

                  • Sotuanduso@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    The dinosaur thing was just an example to deal with the concept of burden of proof. So I suppose in a way I was trolling about it, or at least I didn’t make it clear enough that it wasn’t what I actually thought.

                    I do believe in science, and I haven’t found that scientific discoveries conflicted with the Bible. Interpretations of the Bible do change over time, but the actual text in the Bible does not go out of style. Well, I guess translations do, but you know what I mean. The Bible says God created the planet in a week, and that includes all the plants and animals. We have evidence of evolution, but that doesn’t necessarily invalidate the creation story. God is fully capable of kicking off, directing, and accelerating evolution so that it still fits within the allotted time.

                    I take issue with your line of reasoning in the gay marriage sentence, but to be clear, I’m not saying it should be illegal, just addressing the logic. Just to avoid misconceptions, let’s apply the same reasoning to alcohol instead. Something being legalized has nothing to do with whether God accepts it. Yes, God ultimately has all authority, and yes, the Bible says to follow the laws of man, but the laws of man are ultimately the laws of man, and there’s a clause that the laws of God take precedence in a conflict. But even if that weren’t the case, if the laws of man say we’re allowed to get drunk, that doesn’t mean we have to. The Bible still says it’s a sin (which I think is because it leads to unwise choices and other sins that you could blame on the alcohol,) and what mankind thinks doesn’t change that.

                    Also, to be clear, since you think I’m a hardline kind of guy, something being a sin does not mean we have to fight to make the laws reflect that. There’s a lot of talk in the Bible, especially in the new testament, about how the laws are not enough to make someone righteous, and that was the whole point of Jesus. I do take hardline stances in that what the Bible says is true, but I’m not going to condemn people around me for working on the sabbath, and I’m certainly not going to try to make it illegal. (Well, a law against employers requiring you to work 7 days a week would be good on its own merit, but it doesn’t have to line up with the sabbath.) Another biblical principle is that the way to reach someone is by love, not force.

            • Thavron@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              6 months ago

              No. Your claim has shifted; you are now claiming that the evidence is false/incorrect, and now the burden of proof is on you to prove that it is.

    • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      6 months ago

      So if everyone believed in the invisible dragon under your bed, would that shift the burden of proof to you? I don’t see what the general consensus has to do with anything.

      The people who say quantum mechanics exists don’t just claim it, they can demonstrate it through peer reviewed evidence. Quantum mechanics is also a theory based on observable facts intended to propose testable mechanisms by which those facts can be explained. My claim of a dragon under your bed has no such backing.

      As smarter people than me have said, that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

      • Sotuanduso@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        20
        ·
        6 months ago

        Yeah, if everyone believes there’s an invisible dragon under my bed, then that means the burden of proof is on me to claim there isn’t. And I’d probably address that with a stick.

        As for assertion without evidence, how do you feel about eyewitness accounts of miracles? Or sociological reasoning on the odds of the disciples keeping a conspiracy for their whole lives? Or how about the origin of the universe - we had all the matter in the universe condensed into a single point, complete with laws that would lead to such interesting things as nuclear fusion, complex planetary orbits, and even pockets of life. Do you take it as a given that it’s far more likely for that to have come out of nowhere than for a higher power to exist and have arranged it as such?

        You’re free to discount the evidence (though I’d be happy to debate it with you,) and dismiss the claims because it doesn’t align with your experiences. But note that the idea that all this happened without God is as absurd to me as the existence of God is to you, and equally unsubstantiated.

        • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          No no a stick won’t work, the invisible dragon is very small and agile and would easily dodge your stick. It only makes itself known when it wants to.

          I feel the same about eyewitness accounts of miracles. Eyewitness testimony is not evidence. It could be a good place to start to investigate miraculous claims but that’s all.

          I’m not dismissing claims because it doesn’t align with my experiences, but because there is no reliable evidence. In fact depending on the type of diety you propose I think many claims can be shown to be false because they a contradictory with reality.

          I’d be interested to hear the evidence you have for sure. I’m open to changing my views. I’m not scholar but my understanding is that the best we have is a collection of anonymously written books which isn’t enough for me to accept such a huge claim.

          I don’t know about the origin of the universe but I don’t think anyone claims things came from nothing, we simply don’t know what was before the big bang. Not knowing the answer to me isn’t a good enough reason to assume a divine entity is responsible.

          • Sotuanduso@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            6 months ago

            Eyewitness testimony isn’t evidence, eh? Before I get too invested in this, I want to know what you do consider to be evidence. Suppose that, hypothetically, I run a study where I recruit 1000 people off the street. I tell them that at some point over the next 10 days, I’m going to pray for them to experience peace. For each person, I roll a 10 sided die to choose which day to pray on, do so, and record the result. Then at the end of the 10 days, I bring them all back and ask them to indicate on which day they felt the most peace. ~600 of them say the same day that I rolled for them, ~150 of them are one day off, and ~100 can’t give an answer. If this were to happen (solely hypothetical, ignoring any arguments about whether God would play along for a study,) would that count as evidence?

            • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              15
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              Yes that would count as evidence but only if you modified your experiment slightly:

              1. Don’t tell anyone that you will pray for them.
              2. Instead of personally praying for each person, give the list of participant names to someone you trust.
              3. This person can then pray for a subset of the people listed on random days, recording the person they prayed for and the day.
              4. You conduct interviews with the people as you suggested.
              5. After you record the results of the interviews, you then look at the data from the person who prayed and see where things matched up. You can then observe if there are any statistically significant differences between those who were prayed for and those who were not

              The reason this counts as evidence is because it’s not eyewitness testimony, it’s a controlled experiment which should be reproducible by anyone. By itself it doesn’t prove anything but it would help to start building a body of evidence that prayer can work, or not depending on your results.

              • Sotuanduso@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                6 months ago

                So if it doesn’t meet the standards of a double blind study, it’s worthless as evidence? What about case studies?

                I get that double blind studies are superior because they combat bias, but sometimes double blind studies aren’t what’s been done. Other types of studies aren’t invalid, you just have to take them with salt and consider alternative explanations - just as you do with a double blind study.

                • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Case studies are similar in my mind to anecdotes or eyewitness testimony, an interesting starting point or indication that something might be worth digging into but not really evidence.

                  And yeah I suggested a double blind study because it has the most value for providing potential evidence although even that is no guarantee depending on the experiment design. It’d definitely be a good start though at the very least. You could do a non blind study but then the fact that it’s non blind will be the first thing to come up and cast doubt on the results. If you want to provide solid evidence I don’t think you would want to settle for less than that if you can avoid it.

                  FWIW I think there have already been studies done on prayer but they don’t seem to be conclusive from what I could tell at least but hey, I’m not a scientist. You just asked what I’d consider evidence so hopefully this has helped answer that somewhat. Even with a double blind study though I think you would have some work ahead of you but you’d definitely have my interest!

                  • Sotuanduso@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    Honestly, I’m getting flashbacks from old debates where people were really picky about evidence. If you don’t mind a too-long backstory, read the next paragraph. Otherwise, skip it. Sorry for the amount of context needed.

                    There was a certain mobile app I played with an arena gamemode, where each player was part of a certain arena pool, and you could go up in the ranks by attacking others or go down by being attacked. I figured that, for each arena pool, there’s a certain point of no interest, beyond which nobody would bother attacking you because they don’t play that gamemode. As part of a debate on Reddit, I wanted to give a general indication of where this point was. To do this, I set my defense team to actual garbage (that anyone who unlocked the gamemode could stomp,) stopped doing offense, and recorded my arena ranking as it dropped. This went on for many weeks, and I published my results to Reddit, figuring that when it stops dropping, I’m probably somewhere near the point of no interest. The other guy refused to accept that it had any worth as an indication, though, because it was a sample size of one and too stochastic. We argued about it for… probably weeks, I can’t remember.

                    Anyways, because of that argument, I’m cautious about dealing with internet debaters who have rigorous standards about what counts as evidence. I’m just a guy on the net, not a professional scientist, I don’t have the energy to do research papers to convince one person of something they’re probably not going to believe anyways. This thought especially comes up when I hear things like “if it doesn’t meet the standard, it’s worthless.” Though looking back, it appears I put that word in your mouth, sorry.

                    To be honest, you’re still setting off that red flag in the back of my mind, but unlike everyone it’s been a problem with before, you seem pretty friendly about it (unless you’re one of the people downvoting my every comment.) I’d be willing to talk about it, but it would have to be with the understanding that I don’t have scientifically rigorous evidence because I’m not a scientifically rigorous professional. What I do have is personal experience about subtly yet distinctly answered prayers, paired with mental note-taking to ward off confirmation bias. I also have a couple anecdotes that work better as funny little stories than evidence. And I also have, as mentioned before, a line of reasoning showing that it’s extraordinarily unlikely for the disciples to have been conspiring or hallucinating when it comes to the resurrection of Jesus, though I’d have to dig up my notes on that.

                    Does any of that interest you?

    • Azzu@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Not really though? Non-existence of anything is the default. Existence of something puts the burden of proof on whoever claims this something exists. “Quantum mechanics” is a bad example, it’s a set of theories, not a single theory (like “a god exists”). Depending on what is being claimed, you can easily show people papers, such as this one which shows experimental observable proof of principles of quantum theory.

      At one point, quantum mechanics didn’t exist and wasn’t generally accepted. Physicists like Heisenberg took upon them the burden of proof and provided it.

      General acceptance is how it is treated since then, by non-physicists, but it is simply possible to follow the proof of it if you really wanted to. There are experiments that have been performed and that can be performed again that create observable evidence of the principles of quantum mechanics.

      The burden of proof still lies on proponents of quantum mechanics. What you’re talking about is more of a societal shortcut, accepting that the burden of proof has been verified by other people, not by yourself, as it’s impossible to go deep enough into every subject to actually verify every proof you come across. That’s why specialization exists.

      The difference is that 99% of physicists confirm the proof of quantum mechanics. Specialists on religion are all very much divided on which god(s) or whether at all one exists, and no proof exists for any religious theories.