/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6325148
If the evidence suggests it's false, but can't prove it, then they shouldn't believe it.

If the evidence suggests it's true, but can't prove it, then they should believe it.

If there is no credible evidence, then you shouldn't worry about it.

Question is too vague. There are different standards of "proof" and just because something can't be proven doesn't mean there is no way to gauge its likelihood.

>>6325148
an individual should not either of those

>>6325148
a person shouldn't believe something that cannot be proven, however a person shouldn't reject the idea because while not proven the idea was not disproven.
basically worry about other things unless you can think of a way to prove or disprove that idea.

keep in mind that you cant prove your claim that this idea cannot be proven .
there were many cases in modern science where people found a way to prove things they thought could not be proved .

Apply Hitchens' razor.

>>6325148
No, with hold judgement.

>>6325154 is right with one caveat; if evidence suggests it's true but it can't be proven, a proof should be sought until evidence to the contrary arises.

>>6325148
The past cannot be proven, should you believe it or not?

There is not a single proof Adolf Hitler ever existed. There's only proof pictures of Adolf Hitler exist.

>>6325148
Become an agnostic. No right or wrong answers.

>>6325218
Well theres no proof if we're living in a simulation or not either, but you gotta draw the line somewhere.

>>6325226
The thing is, if we live in a simulation or not does nto affect anything that's going on at all

it wouldn't be a lie, it just wouldn't be real, nobody ever claimed life was real and in the end what does it really matter?

but does anybody of us actually know Adolf Hitler has ever existed? Or existed at the time we're taught to believe? Maybe it was 70 years ago, maybe it was 1000 years ago and we're being lied to

sometimes I think we're living in "1984" without realizing it

>>6325148
>If something can't be proven or disproven, should an individual believe it or not ?
Apply utilitarianism. What is the net effect of believing vs not believing? (Only take provable effects into account)

>>6325148
What are the consequences of believing or not? Is there a practical reason to make others agree with you, or would it be better to let others take their own risks? Why would you need to publicly hold a stance on something with no proof for or against it, and why not consider it as having a certain degree of plausibility instead of deciding the unproven? Just to make oneself appear decisive and authoritative?

We create models of reality within our minds to deal with reality. Most of what we believe is true can't be proven.

In the strict sense, nothing in science is proven to be true, only that a model may be useful under certain conditions, that is, to predict outcomes of experiments within a specified accuracy.

For example, Newtonian gravity theory is pretty good at predicting the motion of objects in the Solar system. But we know that it fails to predict the orbit of Mercury. Einstein's relativity predicts it better.

But that doesn't mean that either theory is right or wrong. They each have utility.

If you are trolling with this question to suggest that believing in gods is okay, then you are mistaken. Belief in gods has caused much misery and hardship throughout history. There is no way to suggest is has any beneficial utility.

>On the Profit of Believing
http://youtu.be/8dfDDOR717k

>Is Oneness the Way out of Skepticism?
http://youtu.be/fs1MeDUgEOA

>The End of Cause and Effect: What's More Than Logic?
http://fuuka.warosu.org/lit/thread/4286631

>>6325148
delicious mew

>>6325240

What's the cost of manufacturing "Adolf Hitler"? Why go to such measures when...

1. Humans are cocksuckers for the dominant ideologies of their mode of survival and production. They will suck up to the boss. They will suck the teat that gives them surplus resources.
2. The paranoid worldview ignores the fact that nobody is in control and that's more horrible than not. Politicians with no idea about how the world of mechanics works are elected and get to make policy with no idea how it works and by virtue of their class, suffer less consequence for decisions that lead to major consequences for other people.