Skeptico has a great post on "the appeal to science doesn't know everything"
The statement “science doesn’t know everything” is obviously true. The believer thinks the corollary is that any idea he likes the sound of, that cannot be proven false, is worthy of consideration. This is wrong. Something is only worthy of consideration if there is a reason to suppose it is true. Usually that means some evidence.....
The argument from the believer in these theories that have no evidentiary support goes something like this:
Hundreds of years ago we didn’t know radio waves existed, but they obviously did exist, so how do you know “qi” (or whatever [wild but unlikely] idea they are promoting) does not exist today?
The answer is – we don’t. But, no one imagined radio waves existed, or claimed to be using them before they were scientifically discovered either. The thing is, “how do you know “qi” does not exist?” is the wrong question. The question you should be asking is, “is there any evidence for “qi”?
Comments