Talk:Yang Xiao Long/@comment-26838620-20150901052756/@comment-24891101-20150903034149

Science is not a positive claim. It is a method. It is the method supported by my epistemology.

I do not reject alternative points of view. I merely regard them as being less accurate. However, there are many things which fall outside of science, and thus I make do. However, if they were somehow within the purview of science, then I would take that road, as it is, under my epistemology, the best way of discovery.

I do not think that people who favor other viewpoints are morons. I do, however, question their epistemology. I believe them to be mistaken.

If one believed in souls despite the lack of evidence, I would ask why they are so quick to reject the null, given that the burden of proof has not been met for my epistemology, and I would seek to discern why their threshold is lower.

In the case of the vegetative state, I would seek clarification in what sense they mean, but would make an appropriate assumption (in our case the biological, as it was abundantly clear this was the arena of discussion) from the pragmatics, and if they are not clear or are being deliberately obtuse, I would chide them for violating Grice's Fourth Maxim.

If one believed in gods, and engaged me on the point, I would ask them to provide evidence of their claim, same as I would if they claimed an orange zebra lived in their garage. I would also ask why they possess an epistemology which allows untested and untestable claims, and attempt to convince them to change such.

In the last case, both are equivalent statements, and this is not an example given the common meanings of the words. Both are equally true.

I called you a moron because at the time you were questioning the biological definition of life, which is elementary to the field. Then you backtracked to merely discussing moral and philosophical definitions, which have less applicability to the physical world, and for which there is little in the way of evidence.