I think The Simple Truth, from the Map and Territory sequence has the answer to your question. It addresses this exact argument, in fact.

Thank you (and others who have posted) for helping me with this silly argument.

:) I'll let you know how things turn out. He's quite clever at thinking on the spot.

I mean, he challenged me to prove that my mother existed, without seeing her. Obviously I couldn't.

You didn't have a phone number you could reach her with? You didn't have any memories of her? These are all sufficient evidence for her existence. And sufficient evidence is what we call "proof".

At the very least, you could tell him "I bet you a thousand dollars that I will later see my mother, when I go home" If he doesn't accept the bet, that's evidence he himself believes in the existence of your mother, as he expects to lose your bet.

His words babbling about "existence" mean nothing -- as his arguments connects to neither the present and the evidence you have now (your memories of your mother), nor the anticipated future. It's just babbling nonsense.

I think The Simple Truth, from the Map and Territory sequence has the answer to your question. It addresses this exact argument, in fact.

There has been one in Farmington Hills but (so far) it has not turned into a regular thing.

Edit: No teenagers were there. I don't know what the median age was. (Probably in the 20s or 30s.)

I thought that just made theorists respond "So phlogiston must be lighter than air". But you're right, the article exaggerates the unfalsifiable, fails-to-constrain-expectations, fake-causality aspects of the theory and oversimplifies it a bit.

Yeah, I mean from history, it shows that even when people think they're right, they can still be wrong, so if I'm proved wrong, I'll admit it, there's no point holding onto an argument that's proven scientifically wrong. :3

Hmm, I've darted around here and there, I've read a few of the sequences, and I'm continuing to read those. I've read how to actually change your mind. I've attempted to read more difficult stuff involving Bayes theorum, but it pretty much temporarily short-circuited my brain. Hahh.

So.. is this pretty much a result of our human brains wanting to classify something? Like, if something doesn't necessarily fit into a box that we can neatly file away, our brains puzzle where to classify it, when actually it is its own classification... if that makes sense?

As a student, I can definitely see the benefit of not having knowledge just, as you said, handed to me on a silver platter. I'd actually much rather be challenged to attempt to figure out something for myself instead of simply being told about it. It honestly makes science rather dull, simply because I have a horrid teacher who doesn't even understand the material she teaches. Hopefully next year I'll have a competant teacher for physics.

Sorry for the late notice. Steven and I usually try to give about a week or so notice, but it didn't work out this time. We figured it's better to have one now even with late notice than to wait until the next time our schedules cleared. Also, we have a Google Group where you can sign up to get e-mail notifications rather than relying on catching it on the site. Hopefully you can make it to the next one!