So you're saying that you have no evidence, instead you're going to argue semantics and burden of proof?
Ok let's do it!
Burden of proof lies within whoever makes a claim, when someone lays claims as fact, they have to prove their claims to be so.
(This is why Science involves theory, because some things just cannot be proven but they also cannot be disproven so there is in theory a possibility of them existing or not existing)
The dragon in your garage can very well be real, I cannot prove it is real or prove it not to be real so why would I make a claim that it is in fact not real?
What I can offer is my opinion or theory, that the dragon is not real. But you won't catch me saying that there are facts that prove this dragon to be fake.
The claims we are discussing are "The Paranormal is Fake". Now again, burden of proof lies on the person laying claim.
So in order for anyone claim that as fact, they would have to effectively verify evidence and come to the conclusion that the Paranormal is not real.
Not having evidence, is not a true or false conclusion. It is a marker that something along the Scientific Method applied is either inaccurate or missing.
Now when you are performing your experiment in hopes that the paranormal does not exist, what tools would you use?
You wouldn't because there are no known tools to verify these things, so the possibility of them existing is in fact there.. While the fact that you cannot prove that that they are is also there... So your experiment's conclusion has to in fact be Inconclusive.
That means that your facts proving the paranormal does not exist are based on Inconclusive Scientific findings.
Now can someone please stop arguing semantics with me and actually show me verifiable evidence that support the factual claim that the paranormal does not exist?
Edited by xFelix, 30 May 2013 - 03:05 PM.