Given a positive ontological claim X, I see at least four different subjective positions one could adopt regarding X:
- I believe that the evidence provides persuasive reason to believe that X is true ("X-ism")
- I believe that the evidence provides persuasive reason to believe that X is false ("a-X-ism")
- I believe that the evidence does not provide persuasive reason to adopt one conclusion or the other ("X agnosticism")
- I don't care ("X apathy")
Examples of positive ontological claims:
- X = "Alien civilizations exist"
- X = "We live in a multiverse"
- X = "There is an even number of atoms in the universe"
- X = "There is an odd number of atoms in the universe"
- X = "There is a flying teapot between Earth and Mars"
- X = "Bigfoot exists"
- X = "Ghosts exist"
- X = "God exists"
- X = "China plans to invade the US"
- etc.
When faced with a positive ontological claim X, what should our default position be?
X-ism, a-X-ism, X agnosticism, X apathy or something else?
Is assuming not-X ("a-X-ism") the most rational position to hold by default in the absence of compelling evidence for X?
Does the answer depend on the claim X, and if so, how and why?