Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
But the Hitchens quote does apply to the defense. A specific claim of innocence isn't accepted without evidence, and any statement the defense makes in response to an allegation does have to be weighed on the value of the evidence supporting it. If there is evidence that the defendant was at the scene of the crime, the defendant may assert that they were elsewhere - but, without evidence, their claim can be dismissed.
You missed the point but its my fault. This is not about burden of proof or how the justice system operates. I should have picked a different example to show that the Hitchens quote has a limited application.
You're coming in late. The "impossible" label was added by another poster earlier.
But how does it? The quote doesn't say you shouldn't test claims, especially as being able to credibly explain observed effects could be considered evidence.
You're wrong. One can enter a plea of innocent and not offer evidence by arguing that the state didn't prove its case.
But even in that scenario the claim under trial is not the claim of innocence but the claim of guilt.
If you follow Hitchens advice and dismiss on lack of evidence, why would you test the hypothesis? And, the mere fact that the hypothesis credibly explains observed effects is not evidence of its validity. It's only evidence that it probably should be tested.
Are you interpreting "dismiss" as "ignore completely and act as if it's false"? To "dismiss" can simply mean "to not accept".
We aren't debating what happens in a trial here. I confused you by picking a bad example to show that the Hitchens quote has limited application.
But even in a trial it still does have an application. All claims that are made without evidence (be it claims relating to innocence or guilt) can be dismissed if they don't have supporting evidence.
If you didn't accept the hypothesis, why would you test it?
Why would you accept a hypothesis as true if you haven't tested it? The whole point is to withhold belief until there is sufficient reason to justify belief. A hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis. You don't accept it before you test it - you test it to see whether it is worth accepting.
Again, you're equating "not accepting" with "assuming it to be false". That's not how it works and not what it means. It simply means that you don't accept the claim as true until it is demonstrated to be so.
But scientists don't BELIEVE a hypothesis UNTIL it is successfully tested. They don't accept them automatically, and they don't have to accept them until they are tested.
You are distorting my position. Scientists don't have to assume an hypothesis is false in order to dismiss it as unworthy of testing. But they aren't going to have evidence of validity unless they first accept that the hypothesis has merit and that is always done, obviously, before they have the evidence of validity provided by test results.
Agreed.
You may need to expand a bit more. What do you mean by "has merit"? What does it mean to determine a hypothesis to "have merit" before it is actually tested?
The "merit" refers to a judgment which determines whether it is worth testing. Hypotheses which credibly explain more observed effects are preferred over those that explain only a few. Also, explanations that require fewer assumptions are preferred over those that require more.
How do you determine whether a hypothesis is "worth testing"?
How do you determine their credibility prior to testing them? How is preference a factor in determining whether a hypothesis is worth testing?
How is that a determining factor in whether or not it is worth testing?
