donnie_darko wrote:
Why do self-styled rationalists always say 'empirical'? What does that even mean anyways?
Something that is capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment. In other words, a
demonstration.
donnie_darko wrote:
So in other words "absence of evidence, while not evidence of absence, is not .. wait, yes it is evidence of absence"
No, it's "Absence of evidence, while not evidence of absence, is sufficient cause for reasonable doubt." Mere absence of evidence does not disprove a claim, but it does give reason to doubt that the claim is valid.
donnie_darko wrote:
I'd say it's reasonable to doubt reincarnation, I have my doubts myself, but i wouldn't say it's unreasonable to believe in it, or at least think it's possible.
If it is reasonable to doubt a claim, then it is unreasonable to believe it ...
without evidence to support the claim. Providing valid evidence of a claim lessens the degree of doubt against the claim, and may even remove doubt entirely. Then it becomes unreasonable to doubt the claim, which is the goal of the claimant.
Do you see how easy it is?