Post Reopened by Sklivvz
2 deleted 614 characters in body; edited title
source | link

Where to draw the line with skepticism Should "absence of evidence" questions be allowed?

What is the correct approach for a skeptic to take when there is simply insufficient evidence ofabout a claim, or it is not possiblenot possible to reproduce or validate a claim made?

To better illustrate my point, I will use the man on the moon claim.

I believe that men have been to the moon because it is reasonable, because it is simpler than the conspiracy theories and because the arguments against that claim are easily debunked IMO.

However there are people who are skeptical of that claim, and given that we can't reproduce the result again (or most people can't due to a lack of means) then is it right to be skeptical?

In short where do you draw the line between needing to see something to believe it or basing a conclusion on reason and logic and the evidence available?

Where to draw the line with skepticism?

What is the correct approach for a skeptic to take when there is insufficient evidence of a claim, or it is not possible to reproduce or validate a claim made?

To better illustrate my point, I will use the man on the moon claim.

I believe that men have been to the moon because it is reasonable, because it is simpler than the conspiracy theories and because the arguments against that claim are easily debunked IMO.

However there are people who are skeptical of that claim, and given that we can't reproduce the result again (or most people can't due to a lack of means) then is it right to be skeptical?

In short where do you draw the line between needing to see something to believe it or basing a conclusion on reason and logic and the evidence available?

Should "absence of evidence" questions be allowed?

What is the correct approach to take when there is simply insufficient evidence about a claim, or it is not possible to reproduce or validate a claim made?

    Post Closed as "off topic" by Mad Scientist
1
source | link

Where to draw the line with skepticism?

What is the correct approach for a skeptic to take when there is insufficient evidence of a claim, or it is not possible to reproduce or validate a claim made?

To better illustrate my point, I will use the man on the moon claim.

I believe that men have been to the moon because it is reasonable, because it is simpler than the conspiracy theories and because the arguments against that claim are easily debunked IMO.

However there are people who are skeptical of that claim, and given that we can't reproduce the result again (or most people can't due to a lack of means) then is it right to be skeptical?

In short where do you draw the line between needing to see something to believe it or basing a conclusion on reason and logic and the evidence available?