Originally Posted by
TheAsterisk!
No, you misunderstand.
An absence of evidence means, "It's doubtful, but possible."
My issue with vampires is that there's no good way to explain their origin. With even the ridiculous Loch Ness Monster, you can try to explain it using real animals (or at least real and once real types of animals). But a vampire cannot be explained reasonably; they're undead, immortal, and can convert human into vampires with bites. It screams of magic and fiction, and little else.
The point is that, until you provide evidence that vampires exist and attempt to explain how they can be as described without invoking "magic," "powers," or any similar supernatural concept, it will be doubted, and rightly so.
Sorry- it's meant to refer to some generic, anonymous farmer- you mentioned mysterious happenings in the countryside?
Bizarre deaths are bizarre deaths. Nothing more, unless you can explain exactly why.
People also don't like the number thirteen. How does either demonstrate anything besides fearful superstition?
Why not take care of the boogyman, too, just in case he's real?
If you're not careful... he'll GETCHA!
EDIT: I figure I better be specific about this...
The reason science ignores the supernatural is because it isn't natural. Basically, if something really happen, if it can really be observed to occur, it is entirely natural, so can't very well be supernatural. Supernatural stuff tends to be impossible to disprove by definition, too, and if you can't conceivably disprove something, it isn't a logical affair. To prove it, you must refute the possible 'disproofs,' for lack of a better term, so, perhaps counter-intuitively, you must be able to disprove to prove, though the evidence must support the proof.
Bookmarks