Comment Re:How can you talk to a Qanon believer? (Score 1) 400
Face it: There really is no rational stance here at this time except keeping the question open.
I agree completely. Unless there was overwhelming evidence, i would not dream of "closing" the question
That is also the sound scientific stance: In the absence of strong indicators for a specific direction or in the presence of conflicting indicators, you keep researching in all possible directions.
Yes, you keep searching. But if you propose a stance that you hold no belief whatsoever "until" evidence is forthcoming, I would respectfully disagree. Even if you exhaust the real of evidence, you can still use logic and probabilities to form practical beliefs. And if you want to maximize outcomes you should do so, even while conscious of your ignorance and uncertainty. Maybe you want to define this as outside a narrow definition of science (albeit many theories are proposed and gain broad acceptance way before any experimental evidence is forthcoming), and that is ok by me (a matter of semantics), but it would still be the rational approach towards navigating the "factual world" you propose.
Also, the difference between absence of evidence and evidence of absence is nuanced (in bayes theorem, the relationship exists: P(evidence/theory) = P(theory/evidence)P(evidence) / P(theory) ). For instance, if reincarnation was true (that is, a significant part of a person comes back over and over, I would expect significant and broad evidence of it. We would discuss past lives often and casually. I don't see it. If an all-powerful all-benevolent entity would exist I would expect to see much more divine intervention and much less injustice and pain in the world. I don't. Hence, I assign a higher likelyhood of death being final as being correct.
At the end, while refraining form any belief is politically correct, ask yourself what you would do if you had to bet your own money on the answer. What you would do is what you really believe.