• catloaf@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    The article says the IOC honored what was on her passport. I don’t think there was any valid concern raised, it was just the Russian body doing Russian things.

    • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Yes, they chose not to investigate. I suppose one might call the allegations unfounded, but without evidence to the contrary they can’t reasonably be called false.

      • Corvid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        There’s a teacup orbiting the sun between Mars and Jupiter. There’s no evidence to the contrary, so it can’t reasonably be called false.

        • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          There’s plenty of evidence to the contrary. Teacups are man-made objects, rocket launches are closely monitored, and no rocket is known to have launched a teapot into that orbit. It isn’t absolutely impossible that something very much like a teapot formed there spontaneously, that a teapot was secretly launched there for no apparent reason, or that extraterrestrials placed a teapot there, but again there is evidence that these events are very unlikely to have happened. Russell’s goal was to illustrate that the burden of proof should be on the one making unfalsifiable claims, but he didn’t pick a good example - the lack of a plausible mechanism for the teapot to arrive in that orbit was even stronger evidence before spaceflight.

                • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  From your Wikipedia article itself:

                  Another philosopher, Alvin Plantinga, states that a falsehood lies at the heart of Russell’s argument. Russell’s argument assumes that there is no evidence against the teapot, but Plantinga disagrees:

                  Clearly we have a great deal of evidence against teapotism. For example, as far as we know, the only way a teapot could have gotten into orbit around the sun would be if some country with sufficiently developed space-shot capabilities had shot this pot into orbit. No country with such capabilities is sufficiently frivolous to waste its resources by trying to send a teapot into orbit. Furthermore, if some country had done so, it would have been all over the news; we would certainly have heard about it. But we haven’t. And so on. There is plenty of evidence against teapotism.