TED Conversations

GOWTHAM REDDY

self employed director,

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” – Christopher Hitchens. Do you agree?

As human beings, when we first hear this quote we instantly agree to it and make a correlation with science. But when we actually listen to this quote and ponder about it, we figure we cannot entirely agree with this quote or disagree with it completely. This quote brings about various knowledge issues and in some cases you agree and some cases you cannot. The knowledge issues that come up are – science, history, human science, religion, belief, and faith.

Topics: Human sciences assertion evidence history religion science
+5
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb

    Roy Bourque 20+

    • +1
    Dec 18 2012: I see two flaws in this statement. First, many hypothesis are presented on a whim that there may be a plausibility to the hypothesis even though evidence is lacking. In further investigation, it may be proved that the hypothesis is false, but this is not always the case. As an example, the man who first proposed plate tectonics was laughed out of the room by his peers.

    The second is when evidence is not observable or comprehensible. There are people of faith who have had spiritual experiences that are so profound that they cannot dismiss it. It has brought them to a realm of consciousness that is not common to all. They cannot provide evidence other than in personal testimony.
    On the same note, there are many stories of paranormal experience. The people who encountered these experiences admit that they were in total denial at first. It was not until all explanations failed that they had to consider the plausibility of realities that fall outside the physical realm. Many still deny that any of these stories are true.
    By the same token, there are many people of faith who deny evolution because the evidence is incomprehensible to them. It isn't that there is no evidence, it is that they are incapable of seeing it for what it is, which to them, makes it no evidence, and therefore, easy to dismiss.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.