Clarification

I just want to make a quick clarification to the previous post, in case some misconstrue my words.

Please don’t assume that I’m saying there’s insufficient evidence to absolutely prove that it’s better never to exist. As far as I’m concerned the Benatarian Asymmetry effectively dismantles any and all arguments in favor of pronatalism and there is an abundance of other evidence that clearly demonstrates non-existence is preferable to existence.  That said, even if such a thing didn’t exist (or, as is the case, that many people don’t find it convincing), it’s still up to the pronatalist to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that existence is better than non-existence. If this were a statistics problem, the statement “better never to have been” is the null hypothesis, and the null hypothesis is always assumed true until proven false. Hence it’s up to the life-affirming individual to demonstrate why existence is a benefit over non-existence, and not the other way around.

Think of it this way: in the whole theism/atheism debate, it is up to the theist to prove the existence of god, rather than the atheist to prove the non-existence of god. “No god” is obviously the null hypothesis. Yes, there’s an abundance of evidence that outright suggests the non-existence of god, but even if there wasn’t, it’s still up to the theist to absolutely prove god exists.

I hope that clears things up.

Advertisements

About coolchildfreeguy

Childfree guy living in Mexico City. Professional pilot by day, all-around fun guy by night.

Posted on September 21, 2014, in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. 1 Comment.

  1. “If this were a statistics problem, the statement “better never to have been” is the null hypothesis”

    What? Definition:

    “In statistical inference of observed data of a scientific experiment, the null hypothesis refers to a general statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena.”

    How is “better never to have been” the null hypothesis? It’s not a statement that there’s no relationship. Wouldn’t a null hypothesis be something more like “there’s no relation between being born and being worse or better off”?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: