It's called "plausible deniability". Political speechwriters and government spooks use this tactic all the time to avoid being held accountable for the things they say and do.

Colonel Panic wrote:I can't believe you don't understand the most basic rudiments of logical thinking.

You are sure about that?

If you can't see it, there is no evidence. Look up the definition of the word "evidence".

I never said they don't exist. I said we have no proof that they do and therefore, no proof that we cannot see them.

Simple logic, really.

I don't assume the existence of physical things I have no perception of. Extraterrestrial life may exist, it may not. I don't know. But I'm not going to assume it exists beyond my perception, because in that case it's completely irrelevant anyway.

I didn't say they definitely don't exist and that they may not exist at some point in the future. I simply made the true statement that there's no evidence that they exist right now.

Comedy gold, right here!

Rick Reuben wrote:

I don't assume the existence of things I have no perception of. That would be a bit crazy.

But you choose to assume the absence of things you have no perception of. Also crazy.

???

Until I perceive something (or positive evidence of it) what reason would I have to assume it's real?

"Completion of research"?

Research is never 100% complete. For logical, critical thinking, you go with the best example you have that fits the evidence you currently have. You don't assume the existence of evidence you may or may not have in the future! That would be silly.

Human knowledge is not static. It is always growing. But that doesn't mean that every notion you can dream up in your head is the truth!

Colonel Panic wrote:If you can't see it, there is no evidence. Look up the definition of the word "evidence".

I never said they don't exist. I said we have no proof that they do and therefore, no proof that we cannot see them.

Simple logic, really.

you incorrectly assume rick is bound by the laws of logic; judging by his response following yours, he clearly isn't.

I'm trying to point him in the direction of logic, because it's the single most useful tool ever devised by man for the pursuit of defining nature and discovering the truth.

Colonel Panic wrote:I'm trying to point him in the direction of logic, because it's the single most useful tool ever devised by man for the pursuit of defining nature and discovering the truth.

Why bother?