There is a reasonable principle which states that that which is not true is false. However, I feel that skeptics misrepresent this principle as that which is not _proven_ true is necessarily false, and I find that disagreeable.
In comp sci there is a third state of logic which is "unknown." But I tend to believe that there are at least five states of logic:
Unproven yet supported by evidence
Unknown and unprovable
Unproven yet negatively unsupported by evidence
Your "mainstream" folks may not accept that the middle three states of logic that I propose even exist. Alternatively, I think that "alternative" thinkers spend most of their time there. Edit:Not implying that is a bad thing.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12-Jul-19 11:47 by AndyBlackard.