If science cannot explain it, then it mustn't exist.
UFOs
Bigfoot
Psychokinesis
Telepathy
Loch Ness Monster
The Rain Boy
Ghosts
Raining Goo
Pyrokinesis
Science cannot explain any of these things and more, thus they say that it mustn't exist.
True
Side Score: 5
|
 |
False
Side Score: 9
|
|
|
|
|
If you have no evidence that something exists then on what basis can you assert it's existence? "I just know so" or "I just feel it" are not valid arguments. The fact of the matter is that false claims greatly outnumber true claims 100:1. Logic and probability dictates that we presume a claim is false until evidence is presented that show it's validity. This doesn't mean something without evidence is untrue, simply that you have no reason to believe it is true. All claims are presumed false until proven. Side: True
1
point
It's not 'I just know so,' or 'I just feel it'. Millions of people have seen these things, yet these idiots who call themselves 'scientists' keep saying it doesn't exist. Few will even consider the possibility! The fact of the matter is that false claims greatly outnumber true claims 100:1. Thus, if there are 1,000,000 claims, 10,000 must be true! All claims are presumed false until proven. Yet, with such utter hatred of the 'paranormal' within the so-called 'scientific community', how is anybody to ever find such evidence? Side: False
People see things all the time that are not real. Most of the time when people actually take the time to examine these events they just turn out to be nothing more than a misidentification. Other times it is from some illusionary effect, a hoax or pure hallucination. Why do people see water in the distance when it is hot outside, it's nothing more than a refraction of light. There was a whole group of people in Alabama that claimed they saw a leprechaun in a tree. People see all sorts of things that aren't there. It's part of the way that our brains are wired. Our ability to see patterns in randomness is what has helped humans survive for thousands of years, but this has also resulted in superstition in humans. Side: True
|
2
points
Science, when applied properly, can explain these things. The trouble isn't the application, it's the base beliefs that taint the findings. Science could more than readily explain the missing link if it was general knowledge that the indiginous beasts were manipulated at the genetic level to account for the rapid growth that baffles natural evolutionary processes. It's widely known that govornments around the ww2/cold war era were experimenting heavily with psychic phenomena; with results. There's a rediculous difference between the level modern science is at, and whats released to the public. -Google search torsion field Science is little more than a tool, hence can only be used as such. Side: False
Again the problem with such claims is that they have no evidence. Suppose Bigfoot does exist, there must be a population of them otherwise they would have died out a long time ago. If there was a population of large unknown bipedal apes walking around, why have we not found them? Why have we never found the skeleton of a deceased one? Why has no one ever caught one? Why has no one ever killed one? Claims of psychics have been tested in the laboratory many time and each time they have failed to show anything. If the US military is able to remote view the enemy with psychic powers, then why are we still using spies? Without any evidence that this actual works why are people prone to believe? Side: True
Atoms, viruses and germs existed thousands of years ago, but without the instruments we have that confirm their existence. A thousand years ago without microscopes you would have no rational reason to believe in viruses or germs. This is where I must say the title of this debate is skewed to one side, but the point that I'm trying to make is that without evidence there is no reason to believe. Side: True
Whether or not a thing can be explained by science holds no relevance for whether or not it exists. Science is a tool used by humans to understand the universe, but there's no reason to assume that everything that exists within that universe can be grasped, comprehended, and explained using science. That being said, if we care about whether or not our beliefs are true, then we should generally only believe things insofar as we have evidence for them. If something cannot be explained by science and evidence, then it may be best to suspend judgment on the matter until evidence does show up (and if evidence never shows up or cannot show up, suspend judgment indefinitely). Side: False
1
point
1
point
I technically agree, just because we don't we can't scientifically explain it doesn't mean it doesn't exist AT THE SAME TIME... what basis do we have to say it does exist? so technically that statement is true, something can exist without us knowing about it but thats the thing we wouldn't know about it. at the most if we were crasy lucky like able to pull 4 aces out of a deck in a row everytime we shuffle them and we were able to do this a MILLION times than we might be lucky enough to speculate and guess it to exist out of the infinite things we can imagine. so is it false if not proven, no, is it illogical to believe, YES. Side: False
|
