Hacker News Reader

There are spiritual observations that precede science. Saying that there isn't scientific evidence for anything is simplying stating that there isn't scientific evidence for something YET. And, showing how science has met spiritual observations, down the road, lends credence to the validity of the earliest explorations of existence.

View on HN

> Saying that there isn't scientific evidence for anything is simplying stating that there isn't scientific evidence for something YET.

It can also be a weasel-y way of avoiding mentioning that there is plenty of scientific evidence favouring the null hypothesis when tested against that something. E.g. mind-reading.

What you are saying is:

A: If an observation has no evidence, then the evidence is yet to come.

B: If an observation now has evidence, it validates the observation.

It's circular.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com