| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Wen-King Su" |
| Date: |
15 Aug 2003 05:24:38 PM |
| Object: |
Re: fallacy of diversion |
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
;> ;> > That statement is either true or false one or the other, and the only
:> :> > reasonable presumption is false unless proven true. This is a basic
;> ;> > scientific principle you are still ignoring:
:>
;> The following says just the opposite.
:
;
:You are mistaken, it clearly says that assuming that something is false
;unless proven true is a basic scientific principle, knucklehead.
Not unless you negate the meaning of the phrase "Note that this is not
the same as ...". You think you are allowed to do that. By that it
says "although assuming so is not a reasonable presumption". Assuming
it false in absence of evidence is not a reasonable presumption, but
scientists do it anyway because, knowing full well they can't prove a
theory true, they propose the opposite to prove it false. Learn some
science. Learn some English at the same time, too.
:> ;"Argument _ad ignorantiam_ means 'argument from ignorance'. This fallacy
;> :occurs whenever it is argued that something must be true simply because
:it
;> ;has not been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that
:> :something must be false because it has not been proved true. (Note that
;this
:> ;is not the same as assuming that something is false until it has been
;proved
:> :true, a basic scientific principle.)" --
;> ;http://www.smouse.demon.co.uk/logargnew/laign.htm
:> :
;> ;
:> :But the relevant point here is that persons of the female persuasion are
;> ;known to exist, knucklehead, so this is simply fallacy of diversion on
:your
;> :part.
:> ;
;> :"The Fallacies of Diversion : The fallacies in this family share the
:> ;characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that is
;> :genuinely under discussion." --
:> ;http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/ignoratio.asp
;> :
:> ;
;> :
:> ;
;> :> So take TWO hypotheses.
:> ;
;> :
:> ;Take them and shove them up your *****, knucklehead. They have logically
;> :nothing to do with the issue that is genuinely under discussion, the
:alleged
;> ;existence of magic invisible sky pixies.
:> :
;> ;
:> :> Explain how you would approach these using your logic.
;> ;
:> :
;> ;As I have explained, the sex of person A has logically nothing to do with
:> :the alleged existence of hypothetical magic invisible sky pixies, you
;> ;knuckleheads are simply trying to get away with fallacy of diversion.
:> :
;> ;"The Fallacies of Diversion : The fallacies in this family share the
:> :characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that is
;> ;genuinely under discussion." --
:> :http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/ignoratio.asp
;> ;
:> :
;> ;
:>
;
:
.
|
|
| User: "sparkup" |
|
| Title: Re: fallacy of diversion |
18 Aug 2003 06:07:12 AM |
|
|
Bob White wrote:
"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
news:bhjmj6$od@neptune.myri-local.com...
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
;> ;> > That statement is either true or false one or the other, and the
only
:> :> > reasonable presumption is false unless proven true. This is a
basic
;> ;> > scientific principle you are still ignoring:
:>
;> The following says just the opposite.
:
;
:You are mistaken, it clearly says that assuming that something is false
;unless proven true is a basic scientific principle, knucklehead.
Not unless you negate the meaning of the phrase "Note that this is not
the same as ...".
The note is, "(Note that this is not the same as assuming that something is
false until it has been proved true, a basic scientific principle.)"
This note points out the fact that a reasonable assumption IS NOT THE SAME
AS argument _ad ignorantiam_, knucklehead.
The note also points out that assuming propositions like 'X exists' are
false until proven true is a basic scientific principle, knucklehead.
This site also says that negative claims, such as "Telepathy and ESP
aren't real, because there isnt any evidence to support them" are also
argument ad ignorantium.
You are claiming that there are no gods, this is not the same as denying
that there are gods.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: fallacy of diversion |
18 Aug 2003 11:24:52 AM |
|
|
"sparkup" <junksender888@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3F40B360.4060903@hotmail.com...
You are claiming that there are no gods ...
Strawman. The theists are making the assertion (statement standing in need
of proof), not me.
"False, there is no such thing" is the denial of the theist assertion, and
the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the denial, knucklehead.
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions
the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is
true unless proven otherwise."
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: fallacy of diversion |
18 Aug 2003 06:06:19 PM |
|
|
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"sparkup" <junksender888@hotmail.com> wrote in message
;news:3F40B360.4060903@hotmail.com...
:
;
:> You are claiming that there are no gods ...
;
:Strawman. The theists are making the assertion (statement standing in need
;of proof), not me.
:
;"False, there is no such thing" is the denial of the theist assertion, and
:the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the denial, knucklehead.
Nope. The denial of a claim is a dis-claim.
dis.claim
(dis-'kl{a-}m)
Etymology: AF i[disclaimer], fr. i[dis-] + i[claimer] to
claim, fr. OF i[clamer]
1) vi, to make a disclaimer
i[obs]
2) a) vi, to disavow all part or share
b) vi, to utter denial
1) vt, to renounce a legal claim to
2) vt, DENY, DISAVOW
Which means either "can't say there is a god", or "can't say there is
no god", depending on which claim that is being denied.
:"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
;the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
:fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions
;the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is
:true unless proven otherwise."
;http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
Precisely the way I understand argumentum ad ignorantiam. Therefore
the only logically sound position for one to take in absence of
evidences is the null hypothesis of "god may exist". Neither "there
is god", or its negative "god does not exist" may stand without proof.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: fallacy of diversion as performed by Capon |
18 Aug 2003 02:58:58 PM |
|
|
In article <o570b.145651$It4.73832@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"sparkup" <junksender888@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3F40B360.4060903@hotmail.com...
You are claiming that there are no gods ...
Strawman.
Then it is Septic the Capon's strawman. Septic the Capon's
Dictionary of Delusional Definitions denies that making a statement
and asserting its truth is an assertion. Since this is directly
contrary to the commonly understood meaning of "assertion", Septic
the Capon is wrong, and is trying to hide his wrongness with Septic
the Capon's Dictionary of Delusional Definitions.
The theists are making the assertion , not me.
"False, there is no such thing" is the denial of the theist assertion, and
the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the denial, knucklehead.
According to Septic the Capon, and oft repeated,, the theist
assertion is that there may be gods. This is a lie to start with as
no theists would ever make the assertion that Septic the Capon tries
to put in their mouths. What begins as a lie cannot be true.
Secondly, Septic the Capon asserts that the denial of an assertion
is not an assertion, which directly contradicts common usage and
formal logic, so is wrong.
Septic the Capon wants to bend a variety of definitions to mean
things contrary to common usage so that he may get out from under
the well deserved burden of proving his assertion that it is a fact
that there are no gods.
He want to appear not to assert it while still asserting it to avoid
being seen to commit the following logical sin:
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions
the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is
true unless proven otherwise."
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
Septic the Capon wants to assert that it is a fact that there are no
gods and then challenge others to disprove it. Does not this exactly
fit the fallacy described above?
Of course it does.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
