• Russell's Teapot is an analogy first introduced by the English mathematician and philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) to refute the idea that the burden of proof (for example, the falsity of religious statements) lies with the doubter.

  In 1952, in an article titled "Does God Exist?" (Is There a God?), sent to the editor but never published in Illustrated, Russell wrote:

  Many believers behave as if it is not for dogmatists to prove generally accepted postulates, but, on the contrary, for skeptics to refute them. This is definitely not the case. If I were to assert that a porcelain teapot revolves around the Sun in an elliptical orbit between the Earth and Mars, no one could refute my assertion, adding as a precaution that the teapot is too small to detect even with the most powerful telescopes. But if I further stated that, since my assertion cannot be refuted, a reasonable person has no right to doubt its truth, then I would rightly be told that I am talking nonsense. However, if the existence of such a teapot was confirmed in ancient books, its authenticity was repeated every Sunday, and this thought was hammered into the heads of schoolchildren from childhood, then disbelief in its existence would seem strange, and a doubter would be worthy of the attention of a psychiatrist in an enlightened era, and earlier - attention inquisitor.

  Peter Atkins explains the idea of ​​Russell's teapot by the fact that a scientist is not obliged to prove negative statements, since, in accordance with the principle of Occam's razor, of the two theories explaining the same thing, the more complex theory (which, among other things, contains higher beings) should be rejected and a simpler theory should be accepted.

Related concepts

Arguments for and against the existence of gods, and in particular the God of the Abrahamic religions, have been proposed by philosophers, theologians, and scientists for several millennia. Currently, in philosophical terminology, these issues are considered within the framework of epistemology and ontology.

Strong (also called positive or hard) and weak (also called negative or soft) atheism are forms of atheism that state that there are no deities in the case of strong atheism, or is a disbelief in the existence of any deities, while clearly not claiming that they do not exist, in the case of weak atheism.

Hanlon's razor is the presumption that when looking for the causes of unpleasant events, human errors should be assumed first of all, and only in the second place - someone's conscious malicious actions. Usually expressed by the phrase: “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity” (English Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity).

" Golden rule of morality" - a general ethical rule that can be formulated as "Treat people the way you want to be treated." The negative formulation of this rule is also known: “do not do to others what you do not want to yourself.”

"God of the gaps" (Eng. God of the gaps) - proof of the existence of God, based on "gaps" in scientific and natural data.

A psychic is a person who supposedly has the ability to extrasensory perception. Since there are no scientifically confirmed cases of the existence of such people, the word "psychic" is usually used to refer to people who claim to have psychic abilities.

Pyrrhonism is a philosophical school of skeptics founded in the 1st century AD. e. Aenesidemus, whose teaching was expounded by Sextus Empiricus at the end of the 2nd or the beginning of the 3rd century AD. e. Named after Pyrrho of Elis, an ancient Greek philosopher (4th-3rd centuries BC), the founder of ancient skepticism, although the connections between his teachings and the philosophical school are unclear. It received a revival in the 17th century.

The Thomas theorem is a statement in sociology that in human behavior the consequences are determined not by reality, but by a person's opinion about it ("self-fulfilling prophecy"). The Thomases (W. A. ​​Thomas and D. Thomas) formulated their thesis in 1928 as...

Absurdism (also known as the “philosophy of the absurd”) is a system of philosophical views that developed from existentialism, which affirms the absence of the meaning of human existence (the absurdity of human existence).

The problem of personal identity is a philosophical problem, consisting in the fact that a person at different points in time considers himself to be the same person, while his body and consciousness are constantly changing. The main competing theories in this area are...

Exotheology is a term that appeared in the late 1960s and early 1970s to discuss the problem of extraterrestrial intelligence in the context of theological issues. This dealt with issues such as the possible theological beliefs of ETs or the impact that ET interactions might have on our own theologians. One of the main themes of exotheology is the use of extraterrestrial beings, who are alive and endowed with a soul, as a tool for a thought experiment...

The Gettier problem is one that challenges the traditional approach of philosophy to understanding knowledge. In the traditional approach of philosophy, knowledge is a true and justified opinion.

Contactees are people who claim to have made contact with aliens. As a rule, contactees claim that extraterrestrial beings gave them their wisdom or important messages for humanity. Contactees describe their meetings with them as regular or sporadic. The main difference between such contacts and abductions is that contactees do everything voluntarily, and violence is not used against them, unlike abductions, when people are subjected to experiments, sexual and moral abuse...

Evidence - reasoning according to certain rules, substantiating any statement. In different fields of science and human activity, this term has different meanings.

Intelligent Falling (RP; eng. Intelligent Falling) is a parody pseudoscientific theory that ridicules the idea of ​​"intelligent design" by bringing it to absurdity. The "reasonable fall theory" states that gravity does not exist, and the fall of objects is controlled in each individual case directly by the higher mind, that is, God.

Newtonianism is a system of views based on the theories, principles and methods of the English scientist Isaac Newton (1642 - 1727). The characteristics of Newtonian philosophy are the rejection of unfounded hypotheses, the use of the method of analysis and synthesis, the application of mathematical methods.

Omnipotence is an inexhaustible force that has no conceivable limits, in other words, a force that has limitless possibilities. Monotheistic religions usually attribute omnipotence to God alone.

Reincarnation research - research in the field of parapsychology, the purpose of which is to identify verifiable facts that testify in favor of the existence of the phenomenon of reincarnation, that is, reincarnation after death into a new body of some immortal human essence.

Cosmology in Judaism - in the philosophy and theology of Judaism, various worldview problems related to cosmology (the science of the properties and evolution of the universe) at various stages of the development of this science are reflected. The evolution of Jewish views on the structure of the universe can be traced from the Biblical period through the Talmud and medieval philosophers such as Maimonides, especially in developing attitudes towards the teachings of Aristotle. In the transitional period to the new time, the generally positive is of interest ...

(suspension of disbelief), the deliberate suspension of disbelief, is a concept introduced in 1817 by the poet and philosopher of aesthetics Samuel Coleridge, who suggested that if a writer brings "human interest and a semblance of truth" to a fictional story, then the reader will refrain from critical judgments about implausibility events and accept the conventions of the narrative. The suspension of distrust, the psychological acceptance of the depicted world as real under given conditions is a condition...

Fatalism or fatality (from Latin fatalis "determined by fate") - belief in the predestination of being; a worldview based on the belief in the inevitability of events that are already imprinted in advance and only “manifest” as the initially incorporated properties of this space.

Teleological argument (Greek teleo - finish, bring to perfection, to the end; logos - word, judgment, reason, meaning) - an argument in favor of the existence of God or any other rational creative being, based on the phenomenon of the existence of complexity or meaningfulness in nature , for example, on the existence of such complex beings as man.

The cosmology of Giordano Bruno is one of the key components of the teachings of the Italian Renaissance philosopher Giordano Bruno (real name: Filippo, nickname - Nolan; 1548, Nola near Naples - February 17, 1600, Rome). Cosmological issues were touched upon in many works by Giordano Bruno, most fully in the dialogues Feast on Ashes (1584) and On the Infinite, the Universe and Worlds (1584) and the poem On the Immeasurable and Incalculable (1591).

Catch-22 is a situation that results from a logical paradox between mutually exclusive rules and procedures. In this situation, an individual who falls under the influence of such norms cannot control them in any way, since an attempt to violate these installations automatically implies their observance.

Maybe a seagull?

In 1952, an article entitled "Is there a God?" (“Is There a God?”) Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) wrote: “Many believers behave as if it were not the dogmatists who were supposed to prove the generally accepted postulates, but, on the contrary, the skeptics were obliged to refute them. This is definitely not the case.

If I were to claim that between the Earth and Mars a porcelain teapot revolves around the Sun in an elliptical orbit, no one could refute my assertion, adding as a precaution that the teapot is too small to detect even with the most powerful telescopes. But if I further stated that, since my assertion cannot be refuted, a reasonable person has no right to doubt its truth, then I would rightly be told that I am talking nonsense.

However, if the existence of such a teapot was confirmed in ancient books, its authenticity was repeated every Sunday, and this idea was hammered into the heads of schoolchildren from childhood, then disbelief in its existence would seem strange, and a doubter would be worthy of the attention of psychiatrists in an enlightened era ... "

This article was sent to the editors of Illustrated magazine in 1952, but was not published at that time due to its scandalous nature. The main idea of ​​Russell's Teapot is that of the two theories that explain the same thing, the theory with "higher beings" (creationism) should be rejected, and instead a theory without superfluous entities (evolution) should be accepted. and natural selection).

Pastafarianism

The parody religion, also known as the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, was founded by Bobby Henderson in 2005 to protest the Kansas State Department of Education's decision to introduce the concept of "Intelligent Design" into the school curriculum as an alternative to evolutionary teaching. Henderson proclaims a preposterous belief in a supernatural meatball-like Creator, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and calls for the teaching of Pastafarianism in schools along with other religions. The name of the religion is a kind of “vinaigrette” from the words “Rastafarianism” and the Italian “pasta”, meaning pasta. "Ramen" - the official end of Pastafarian prayers - is also a combination of the word "Amen" (used in Christianity, Judaism and Islam) and "ramen" - Japanese noodle soup.

According to the Pastafarian belief system, pirates are the apostles of the Pastafarians. Their depiction as sea robbers is vile misinformation spread by the opponents of religion. In reality, the pirates were "peace-loving explorers and spreaders of goodwill" who handed out candy to children. In a mocking letter to the Kansas Department of Education, Henderson develops the argument that "global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct consequence of the decline in pirate numbers since 1800." The relationship of pirates to warming is confirmed by the fact that as soon as the number of Somali pirates increased, the warming conference failed. Thus, the author proves that statistically related things, however, are not necessarily connected by causal dependencies (as the creationists insist).

The canonical dogmas of pastafaritanism include eight pieces of advice “You'd better not do this” (as comments on the fulfillment of the Old Testament Ten Commandments). For example: “You better not act like a self-absorbed ass and saint when you preach My spaghetti grace. If other people do not believe in Me, there is nothing to worry about. I'm not that narcissistic, honestly." Or: “It would be better if you did not justify in My name the oppression, enslavement or economic exploitation of others.” Or: “It would be better if you didn’t spend a lot of money on building churches, temples, mosques in the name of glorifying My pasta grace, because this money is better spent on ending poverty, curing diseases and reducing the cost of the Internet.”

In 2011, the Austrian authorities, on the basis of constitutional human rights, had to allow Pastafarian Nico Alm to be photographed on a driver's license with a colander on his head as a religious headdress. Otherwise, why can Muslims be photographed for documents in hijabs that hide most of the face? “My main goal is to make people think about the adequacy of the system,” declared a practicing atheist.

Invisible Pink Unicorn

The parodic deity has the appearance of a pink unicorn, but is invisible, a contradiction similar to that of most theistic religions. They are based on the “paradox of omnipotence”: if an omnipotent deity creates a stone that it cannot lift, it will cease to be omnipotent. If it can't, then it never was.

The first known written mention of him was in the Usenet alt.atheism newsgroup in the summer of 1990. The image of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is eagerly used by religious skeptics, and in 2007 it became an informal symbol of atheism. To this day, it is used to prove the conditionality of belief in the supernatural: they replace the word "God" in any expression that is related to religion, from which their meaning becomes completely delusional, fanatical, "sectarian." This is what the speaker usually achieves, trying to show the “humble parishioner” how he looks from the outside with his ideas.

Either I didn’t notice before, or the aggravation really set in, but recently, among the arguments that atheists throw at believers, “Russell’s teapot” often began to come across. Just in case (for those who have not yet been hit by a "teapot" on the head), I will quote the original from Wikipedia:

If I assume that a porcelain teapot flies between the Earth and Mars around the Sun in an elliptical orbit, no one will be able to refute my assertion, especially if I prudently add that the teapot is so small that it is not visible even to the most powerful telescopes. But if I then said that since my statement cannot be refuted, then it is unacceptable for the human mind to doubt it, my words would have to be considered nonsense with good reason. However, if the existence of such a teapot were asserted in ancient books, memorized every Sunday as holy truth, and precipitated in the minds of schoolchildren, then doubting its existence would be a sign of eccentricity and would attract the attention of a psychiatrist in the age of enlightenment to the doubter, or past inquisitor.

Let's try to figure out what can be objected to.

1. Let's start with the fact that we are offered a false dichotomy of two options: to decide in favor of the existence of an object not recorded by devices, or in favor of its non-existence - omitting the third option "we don't know for sure." Religion does not claim that it has indisputable evidence of the existence of God, we just BELIEVE in God, and for this faith "we do not know for sure" from the side of science, it is quite enough for us.

2. Further, the analogy (teapot-God), like any other, is not a proof, and it is very strange that it is the ardent champions of logic who make an attempt to bypass it, logic, on a crooked goat. Moreover, the analogy itself is false, for the teapot and God have no resemblance. True, they often try to save her by adding to the original: "a teapot with absolute properties." Let's try to imagine such a teapot. Will it have some shape, dimensions, weight and other specific properties that make it a teapot? If we mentally endow the teapot with omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, eternity and immutability, etc. with absolute properties, it will cease to be a teapot and become the Absolute. A teapot with absolute properties - combining mutually exclusive concepts is simply impossible - and the same goes for "absolutes" in the form of spaghetti monsters, pink elephants, etc.

3. As for "no one can refute my statement", then speaking of God, we mean an ideal / spiritual object that cannot be entered into the framework of our material world. The teapot is a material object, subject to the laws of physics known to us, and we know that it, the teapot, simply has nowhere to come from in an elliptical orbit between Earth and Mars.
That is, we are offered the erroneous "reductio ad absurdum": first it is said that there is something, the existence of which we cannot know for sure. But the technique works only when the deduced consequence reveals obvious contradictions, that is, when we managed to bring it to things known in advance - something that definitely cannot be. Therefore, if, nevertheless, contrary to common sense, we assert that we cannot know for sure whether there is a teapot in orbit or not, the reductio ad absurdum regarding such a teapot DOES NOT WORK. There is probably a teapot, since this is precisely what is stated in the condition of the proposed problem.

4. Here we come to another interesting difference: belief in a kettle, unlike belief in God, is absurd, and absurdity is a constant companion of other clone analogies. God, starting from the moment of the emergence of our world, fills in the gaps in the ideological chain of causes and effects. Our world must have a reason - otherwise the law of causal determinism is violated. Many then ask - what then is the reason for God? God may not have reasons, because the law of causal determinism is the law of our world, to which God does not belong. The kettle, unlike God, cannot in any way be connected with us and the phenomena of interest to mankind - for us it is a completely useless, redundant entity, faith in which, accordingly, is also useless, redundant and therefore ridiculous. If we take, instead of believing in a teapot, even believing in aliens unnoticed by telescopes (highly camouflaged) who brought the first people to Earth, the seeming iron persuasiveness of the analogy strangely evaporates, because there is no absurdity (the connections are clear), and we don’t know about the absence of such aliens as firmly as about the lack of a kettle. They may well exist on distant planets, invisible to telescopes.

5. From which it can be concluded that the real problem posed by Russell is not about unfalsifiable claims, but of a completely different kind. I see it this way: if someone goes crazy and starts asserting absurdity, how can one scientifically prove to him that he is crazy? How to draw a line between a normal person and a patient of a madhouse? What, generally speaking, can be presented to such a patient from a scientific point of view, if we cannot refute the delirium in a scientific, verifiable experiment? And nothing...
In other words, Russell makes his weak point - the limitations of modern science, from which the incompleteness of the scientific method in the knowledge of the world follows, Russell makes strong, arguing as follows:
If there is nothing to reason with a madman, it turns out that we are wrong. But can this be? NO! WE CAN'T BE WRONG! So, we can simply ignore the evidence of our innocence. That is, Russell did not prove his sanity at all, but appropriated it in the most impudent way.
Karl Popper in this place acted much more honestly - instead of Russell's "fool himself", he just recognized the problem and tried to protect the scientific method from madmen, to fill it with a new criterion of "falsifiability". Omitting the validity of the introduction of the Popper criterion, I note that the fog still remains. Unlike the natural sciences, which study man (humanities) and society (social) make little use of this criterion, since it is impossible to meet it: a man goes beyond all the models by which they try to determine him, and the question "what is common sense" remains open.

Logically speaking, there is no reason to "believe" in a reality whose existence has not been proven. So to answer the question "What's the point?"- first you need to prove that any meaning exists at all. But even before we undertake to prove the "theorem of meaning" - we must prove the existence of the Creator (because only the "manufacturer" can put this same meaning).

Let's try to consider - and refute - two common stamps:

1. "There are cardinal contradictions between science and the Torah."

2. "Atheism is the result of rational thinking, religion is irrational."

1. Since ancient times, among the peoples of the world, it was the clergy who were the bearers of knowledge - for the rest, education was, for the most part, inaccessible. This continued until, in the Middle Ages, the Christian church swung at political power. To keep this power, the church fathers did not disdain methods: all dissidents were subjected to persecution and ruthless extermination. Then began a tough confrontation between religion and science.

This struggle caught the Jews from the "wrong side" - they were burned at the stake along with the alchemists. When the power of the church weakened, science flourished. And blossoming (or "blooming"?) - I decided to take revenge. Not only Christianity, but also religion in general, got "under distribution", and the Jews with their Judaism (as always) again found themselves on the "wrong side".

There is a big difference between the relationship "science-Christianity" and "science-Judaism". Although we do not deify science, like the naive naturalists of the 19th century and their enthusiastic followers, we are also far from opposing science to the Torah.

If you take the most superficial look at the history of our people, you will see that many (very many!) of the greatest sages of the Torah were at the same time the leading scientists of their time (Rabban Gamliel, Saadia Gaon, Rambam, Abarbanel, Ibn Ezra, the Vilna Gaon - all do not list). There are many more professors among Orthodox Jews than there are Torah sages among atheists. And here the ratio of intellect and religiosity is absolutely irrelevant. We have been accused of anything: of greed and venality, of nationalism and cosmopolitanism, of pacifism and of unleashing wars, we have never been accused of one thing - lack of education and a low level of intelligence. And yet - the best minds of our people for centuries, in the overwhelming majority, strictly adhered to the Torah. All fables from the series "saucer on elephants", "basin on whales", "crystal firmament", "immaculate conception", etc. - at different times were accepted by Christians, but never - by Jews. In the Talmud and Talmudic literature, the structure of the world is described in such a way that you will be surprised when you read it. So - there was no contradiction between the Torah and science, no, and there cannot be (if only for the simple reason that they are engaged in non-overlapping areas: the Torah - the root causes, science - regularities within the consequences). And automatically transferring to Judaism all the claims of science to Christians is the same as confusing astronomy with cooking.

The kippah scholars know perfectly well what is science and what is Torah - and they have no contradiction. Atheist scholars are well versed in science, but their level of Torah knowledge is no different from that of an average kibbutznik. They don't agree with the Torah. They do not agree with their ideas about her (an anecdote is told about this: once a small-town atheist approached the rabbi: “Rebbe, I don’t believe in God!” - to which the rabbi replied: “You know, I do too.” Atheist balked: "How so? You are equal!" - and received the answer: "In that god in which you do not believe - I do not believe either").

2. In The Theory of Games, Blaise Pascal (this is not an equal, but a French scientist) argues that the risk must be proportional to the gain. That is, it is permissible to wager, say, 1,000 shekels if there is a real chance to win 2,000. But if you risk losing 1,000 shekels in order to get a chance to win a shekel, this is not serious. Even if in this case the chance to win is much greater than the chance to lose. According to the same scheme - if 5 shekels are at stake, and the prize fund is 5 million, then this is a worthwhile gesheft, even if the chance of winning is small. Basically, it's simple.

Now let's see: If you admit that there is even one percent that I, a religious person, is right - and still live differently - there is a one percent risk that you will miss Eternity, while winning a trip to the sea in Shabbat or a cigarette on Yom Kippur. What do I lose if I follow the 1% chance that the Torah is true? That's right - the same cigarette, but mind you: if I break the bank, eternity is at stake. If you, having received reliable information that the water in the tap is infected with a virus, which in one case out of a hundred leads to death, you will still drink it (i.e. put your life on the line), motivating it with strong thirst or too low probability of catching this virus - You will earn admiration as a Russian roulette player. The title of a rationally thinking person you do not deserve. Therefore, even if there were no evidence that we are going to prove - a rational approach requires being religious, even out of doubt.

And further. The same "Russell's teapot" is an argument in my favor. If you take the position of an impartial observer (I know, I know, it's very difficult. But anyway - try it) - you can answer the following question:

You are walking around Allenby enjoying the Israeli winter. Suddenly, out of no oak, a stranger pounces on you and drags you to the District Court. There he addresses the judge with the words: "Your honor, I caught the real killer! Here he is!" - and points to you. The judge asks what evidence he has in his pocket. He is surprised: "Me?! I have to prove? Let HE prove that he is innocent!" - the judge smiles, explains to him the principle of "presumption of innocence" and releases you on all four sides. Pay attention - he lets go not because of insufficient evidence and not because of doubt, but with the verdict "not guilty" - one hundred percent.

Now imagine a more complicated situation: a case of non-payment of a debt. There is no presumption: you claim that you paid, he - that he did not pay. And here one detail turns out: when you received the money, no receipt was issued - that is, he cannot prove the very fact of the existence of the debt and the fact of its non-return. And at this moment you remember that when paying the debt, he wrote you a receipt for its repayment. Where is she? "I don't remember, I'll have to look." Stop!

Attention is the question: which side will a rationally thinking outside observer take?

That's right - on yours. Because you have a chance to prove your case. Your opponent doesn't have that chance.

"Russell's Teapot"(English)Russell" s teapot) is an analogy first used by the English mathematician and philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) to refute the idea that the burden of proof (for example, the falsity of religious statements) lies with the doubter.

In 1952, in an article titled "Does Gd Exist?", Russell wrote:

“Many believers behave as if it is not for dogmatists to prove generally accepted postulates, but, on the contrary, for skeptics to refute them. This is definitely not the case.

If I were to assert that a porcelain teapot revolves around the Sun in an elliptical orbit between the Earth and Mars, no one could refute my assertion, adding as a precaution that the teapot is too small to detect even with the most powerful telescopes. But if I further stated that, since my assertion cannot be refuted, a reasonable person has no right to doubt its truth, then I would rightly be told that I am talking nonsense. However, if the existence of such a teapot was confirmed in ancient books, its authenticity was repeated every Sunday, and this idea was hammered into the heads of schoolchildren from childhood, then disbelief in its existence would seem strange, and a doubter would be worthy of the attention of a psychiatrist in an enlightened era, and earlier - attention inquisitor".

As you (and Russell) rightly pointed out, there is no way to prove "no". But there is an opportunity to prove that "is". And even if you do not know the proof, have no idea how this can be done, or have never heard of such proof - this does not mean that such evidence does not exist. And therefore - even if we assume that neither you nor I have a presumption - the advantage is on my side.

As you can see, before proceeding to the proofs, we found out that, logically, the peysaty is in a more advantageous position than the atheist. From a rational point of view.

Russell's teapot roams the space theater

Russell's teapot is a well-known analogy that it is necessary to prove the existence of a phenomenon or object, and not non-existence. The “teapot” was first used in a religious theme, but this logical utensil has to be used in astronomy.

Disputes about religion often come down to one thesis: “And you prove that there is no God\Buddha\Flying Spaghetti Monster!” In 1952, mathematician, thinker and just a good person Bertrand Russell wrote the article "Is there a God?", which said the following:

If I were to claim that a porcelain teapot revolves around the Sun in an elliptical orbit, no one could refute my assertion, if I add prudently that the teapot is too small to detect even with the most powerful telescopes. But if I further stated that, since my assertion cannot be refuted, a reasonable person has no right to doubt its truth, then I would rightly be told that I am talking nonsense. However, if the existence of such a teapot was affirmed in ancient books, its authenticity was repeated every Sunday, and this thought was hammered into the heads of schoolchildren from childhood, then disbelief in its existence would seem strange, and a doubter would be worthy of the attention of psychiatrists in an enlightened era, and earlier - attention inquisition.

Bertrand Russell is pleased with what has been said.

In short, Russell's Kettle Paradox is that a scientist doesn't have to prove that something doesn't exist. Conversely, any statement about the existence of an object or phenomenon must be supported by something.

Cooling Kettle

The analogy cited by the mathematician pleased people, and therefore became a byword and one of the criteria for the scientific nature of a statement. For example, the existence of dinosaurs is supported by evidence in the form of bones, but talking tomatoes are not. Therefore, they now teach in school that dinosaurs walked a long time ago, and not talking tomatoes, although there is no evidence to refute the latter. Here, we hope, everything is clear - if not, write in the comments, we will come up with an example clearer.

How Pirates Affect Global Warming

There is another funny phenomenon indirectly connected with the Teapot. We cannot prove the influence of pirates on global warming, although there is a statistical relationship between them. When there were a lot of pirates in the world, it was much cooler on Earth. The decrease in the number of pirates by the 20th century coincided with an increase in global temperatures. Having reached a peak in the late 2000s, the warming began to recede simultaneously with the rise of piracy in Somalia.Of course, pirates have the same attitude to temperature as bearded, one-eyed and one-legged guys in cocked hats have to real pirates, but the coincidence is funny.

There is another side. The existence of Atlantis is spoken of only in myths, and there is no clear evidence anywhere. Therefore, no one from archaeologists bothers to prove that there were no mythical Atlanteans. This is interpreted by lovers of the supernatural in the spirit of "silence is a sign of consent." “If scientists cannot refute Atlantis, then it existed!” they say. This is where Russell's Teapot comes to the rescue and cools overly ardent minds.

Super kettle at home

The Kettle Principle was used by people long before the birth of Bertrand Russell. Let's see how the superhero teapot helps us in everyday life.

One of the most striking examples is the presumption of innocence in justice. If a store across the street is robbed at night, no one will arrest you just because you live next door. More compelling reasons are needed to accuse; for example, the fact that you were seen at the door when the alarm went off. Everyone is innocent until proven otherwise - this principle, Kettle Russell's cousin, has protected people for many years from arbitrariness in the judicial system.

Reptilians will not pass!

Another Kettle mercilessly castigates the tabloids. In 2012, journalists often questioned astronomers about the planet Nibiru. Hearing in response that scientists cannot prove that it does not exist, the journalists trumpeted the end of the world. But astronomers just wanted to say that Nibiru is no more real than a porcelain teapot between Mars and Jupiter! By the way, we have already written about the solar system. There is an opinion that it was she who was mistaken for Nibiru by astronomers of the past.

The principle can also be useful at work. If the boss says that there is no reason not to pay the bonus, this does not mean that the money is in your pocket. After all, we still need reasons to encourage!

Finally

We Guides to the world of space have our own Russell Teapot in the kitchen, and we regularly make sobering tea with it. And if you are interested in the real wonders of the Universe, and not the Atlanteans, plowing the expanses of the cosmic theater, then you are in the right place. Below we have a lot of interactive things, and there is also