HID is another one.
HID is another one.
Denial due to a lack of evidence is unscientific, scientific is hypothesizing and seeking evidence.
No it's not. It is one of the most fundamental aspects of the scientific method. It does not preclude forming hypotheses and seeking evidence. You assume the 2 are mutually exclusive, but they're not.
Actually denial is precluding, it is a conclusion; and it is a conclusion that goes beyond unscientific to illogical since it tries to claim a negative due to a lack of evidence. Proper denial requires evidence to the contrary not ignorance. Denial is something different than "there is currently no evidence to support/demonstrate/etc".
"Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proved false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false."
I know (think) you're joking. But why do so many of these replies equate evidence solely with things you can see. We can't see dark matter, but we can see it's effects.
Perhaps because in causal conversation people very often refer to "seeing" something, directly or indirectly (via a displayed number, pointer on a gauge/meter, physical byproduct, etc). For example we can "see" gravity on a bathroom scale, particles in a cloud chamber, etc. "Seeing" isn't necessarily being used in a literal sense, rather a figurative one.
But I also think people are sometimes making an indirect point, trying to somehow demonstrate the evolving nature of human understanding, of discovery, of the existence of things that were until very recently beyond belief. Demonstrating the logical flaw in that if we can not directly or indirectly perceive something it must not exist. That the universe is not limited to things we perceive or understand. Which addresses your statement: "I deny the existence of anything for which there is no evidence." The Higgs boson existed whether we had evidence or not, whether we even had a theory of its existence or not, whether we existed as a species or not.
I deny the existence of anything for which there is no evidence.
God and Heaven are just made of Dark Matter, that's why we can't see them. See, no contradiction with physics.
No, crashing macs when connecting to an external, but recommended, display is apple's fault. But shoddily made hardware sold by a different company is most certain not Apple's fault. Although they will get deservedly hammered for it anyway.
When you shut down your own display line and **recommend** a particular 3rd party make/model as the premier display for your new line of computers, yes, you deserve to get hammered.
No. Companies don't test shit like this. They plug it in, see it's good to go, check that their partner is ISO9001 certified and push it out the door.
Actually when you are shutting down your own display line and recommending a particular make/model 3rd party monitor to all your customers as the premier monitor for your new line of computers, you might do a little more than look for the ISO checkbox. And that testing might include some "eating your own dog food" type testing on a real desktop or two.
You can bring any calculator you like to the midterm, as long as it doesn't dim the lights when you turn it on. -- Hepler, Systems Design 182