Stop right there - you have not yet established that your vital spark exists. First establish that it exists and then establish that it takes life to make it.

Right now you are begging the question.

: I never said you can't "disprove" this "Vital Spark"
: thing. If you create Life from non-Life, then you've found whatever it is
: that Makes Life Work. That hasn't been found yet. That's all I ever
: said.
: My belief is that this 'vital spark' will never be created; but if it is,
: one still used life (intelligence) to create it :P

Until you establish THAT it exists there is little point in taking the idea any further. Do the ground work first.

: Right. But if you observe that 1) the missing tooth was placed under a pillow
: at night and 2) that a quarter was found under the pillow in the morning,
: then anything else (you didn't observe) which you use to attempt to
: explain those observations are evidence in nature. And so people will need
: to choose which explanation of the observations is more believable to
: them. If you can find a video recording of an adult parent taking the
: tooth and replacing it with a coin during the night, most would consider
: that irrefutable evidence for the explanation that it was not a tooth
: fairy. Tooth fairy fanatics might accuse the video of being forged. yadda
: yadda. Point being - neither side arguing was there to observe it
: happening (presuming the parent isn't the defendant either way :P), so any
: explanation is a matter of plausibility and judgement. To tooth fairy
: fanatics, they won't be able to provide proof of tooth fairy activity, but
: they can easily interpret any evidence you provide to fit their
: pre-existing belief in the tooth fairy. Ultimately, by perception, neither
: side could prove their position, only provide evidence that anyone
: "in their right mind" would accept as the truth of the event.
: This inability to prove something that happened in the past is precisely the
: basis for conspiracy theorists :P They weren't there, they didn't see the
: truth, therefore everything you show them is tainted by their perceived
: conspiracy and they'll always find a way to explain it all away; because
: in that context, trusting the testimony of a witness or validity of the
: presentation of interpreted evidence is key to believing something is true
: that one didn't observe in person. If they already believe you're lying,
: no evidence you present will convince them otherwise - because they
: weren't there.

Let's not worry about fanatics - lets assume that people will be reasonable.

: "For all intents and purposes" - everything we've observed
: demonstrates that shoes can't think, therefore it is appropriate that we
: move forward with that understanding, considering that statement as fact -
: at least until another explanation better supports the results in our
: educated opinion, or it's demonstrated otherwise and falsified.
: That, to me, is good science.

I do not believe that shoes can think but I'd be hard pressed to provide convincing proof of their lack should someone ask me to prove that they don't think.

They are made by people - life and intelligence had a hand in their making - maybe they have a vital spark that lets them think. I'm not sure what this vital spark thing is or how it works or what it can do.

Normally I wouldn't worry about things that haven't been shown to exist but you seem to think that VS is real. How do you know? How do you know what it can and can not do?

: "Shoes don't think, because they don't!" isn't good science (as
: ridiculous as the statement sounds, which is the point; we believe it
: because everything we see and experience demonstrates it sufficiently for
: us to take the statement as truth)

What have you seen that demonstrates that shoes don't think?

I have a simpler proposal. If we have no convincing evidence that X exists, lets just assume for now that it doesn't exist. If we ever get good evidence that it might exists and if we have a working method that will let us determine if it exists then that is the time to start taking its existence seriously.

Our acceptance of the existence of a thing should be proportional to the quality of the evidence for its existence.

: That's unfortunate.
: However, hopefully every scientists understands the difference (in concept)
: of evidence vs proof (even though the terms themselves are often used
: interchangeably). Evidence - presenting an observation with an explanation
: to support a theory; evidence is used to support a framework. But evidence
: itself isn't proof, and that's why when fighting in court submission of
: evidence is an effort to use an item or a testimony to support an
: argument, but it isn't proof because the opposition will be given a chance
: to find a way to show how said evidence actually supports their position
: too.
: I hope everyone cares for evidence!
: The fun part is when someone provides " proof " of a controversial
: statement, and nay-sayers will find a way to show that it's not the sole
: possible explanation, in a sense downgrading the 'proof' to mere evidence
: that was interpreted to support one side of the argument. If another
: explanation is supported by the evidence, then there are now two possible
: ways to explain the result, and both are equally 'plausible'. Someone has
: to make a judgement call.

There are very few things (any?) that can be absolutely proven. Therefore we have to weigh the evidence - that is what scientists do all the time. Science is an inductive discipline.

But we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bath water and say - because we can't know absolutely we, therefore, know nothing. Nor should we say that all is opinion and all opinions are equal.

The existence of electrons is better established than the existence of your vital spark.

: A court doesn't necessarily determine 'truth', what actually happened, only
: decides what the law should consider the accepted explanation of the
: presented evidence. Many have been wrongly accused and wrongly punished
: precisely for this reason. And we have plenty of movies that play on evil
: lawyers finding a way to present a feasible explanation, whether true or
: not, that is supported by all submitted evidence, just to win the case.
: "Evidence" itself is not "Proof". We can only choose
: one side of an argument that we feel bits 'fits' with our own
: observations.

Nonsense. Here is a clip that shows a fight between two people.

The clip shows that there are two opposing opinions about how well the Black Knight did in the fight. The two opinions are not equally well supported and we don't have to take sides to see it.

The most important take home is that one opinion IS merely a matter of bias. The Black Knight is in denial and his prejudices are preventing him from seeing the truth. But other people who are not involved in the fight can see that he is wrong.

The King is involved in the fight therefore he could be accused of bias - nevertheless his opinion is right. So these things are not necessarily symmetrical - two people can hold opposing viewpoints - one can be biased and wrong - the other can be unbiased and right.

: Definitely. That's all it is, a big-ticket brainless action flick :)

: Because Environment! No nukes! No nukes! No nukes!

The Kaiju ate the Greenpeace protesters.