Second, the onus-of-proof issue: the agnostic demands proof of a negative in a context where there is no evidence for the positive. He treats arbitrary claims as ideas proper to consider, discuss, evaluate-and then he regretfully says, “I don’t know,” instead of dismissing the arbitrary out of hand. Here are a few obvious ones: First, the agnostic allows the arbitrary into the realm of human cognition. See how many fallacies you can find in it. The agnostic viewpoint poses as fair, impartial, and balanced. In regard to all such claims, the agnostic is the type who says, “I can’t prove these claims are true, but you can’t prove they are false, so the only proper conclusion is: I don’t know no one knows no one can know one way or the other.” I mean this term in a sense which applies to the question of God, but to many other issues also, such as extra-sensory perception or the claim that the stars influence man’s destiny.
“ a widespread approach to ideas which Objectivism repudiates altogether: agnosticism.
0 kommentar(er)
