| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"C Ketchikan" |
| Date: |
31 Jul 2003 05:05:59 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Mike Oliver tries to shift the burden of proof |
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0307200630.726b8619@posting.google.com...
... that any gods exist. ...
That any what exist, knucklehead?
.
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: Mike Oliver tries to shift the burden of proof |
31 Jul 2003 08:16:05 PM |
|
|
"C Ketchikan" <cj@ket.net> wrote in message news:<bpgWa.22030$Oz4.6195@rwcrnsc54>...
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0307200630.726b8619@posting.google.com...
... that any gods exist. ...
That any what exist, knucklehead?
Any 'gods'. If you don't know what those are, I suggest that you ask
a poster commonly known in these parts as Septic Sophie the Crazed
Capon. He claims to know that 'gods do not exist' is a falsifiable
statement, meaning (if his claim is true) that he knows the criteria
by which a god can be demonstrated to exist, meaning that he has the
complete definition of a god - which I'm sure he'll be happy to share
with you.
Your only problem would be to find SSCC, as he posts under a variety
of aliases. I would suggest that you do a google search using some of
the specific technical terms he uses, such as 'knucklehead', 'homo,'
or 'skullfucker'.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Mike Oliver tries to shift the burden of proof |
01 Aug 2003 09:43:51 AM |
|
|
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0307311716.5749949e@posting.google.com...
"C Ketchikan" <cj@ket.net> wrote in message
news:<bpgWa.22030$Oz4.6195@rwcrnsc54>...
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0307200630.726b8619@posting.google.com...
... that any gods exist. ...
That any what exist, knucklehead?
Any 'gods'.
Any what? Define your term.
If you don't know what those are, I suggest that you ask
a poster commonly known in these parts as Septic Sophie the Crazed
Capon. He claims to know that 'gods do not exist' is a falsifiable
statement ...
The null hypothesis ("There is no X as hypothesized") is always falsifiABLE,
Mr. Dunce, though it is not always falsifiED in every case. Learn the
difference.
All you have to do to falsify "There is no X as hypothesized" is to define
your X and produce evidence of one. Meanwhile, the only reasonable
presumption ("There is no X as hypothesized") stands unscathed.
This is known as the scientific method of investigation. Ever heard of it?
Null : of, being, or relating to zero
www.m-w.com
(as in, "There are no ETs.")
---
Testing the Null Hypothesis
by John Marcus, MD
email
http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm
SETI is perhaps the most highly interdisciplinary of sciences,
encompassing not only astronomy, biology, engineering and physics, but
also psychology, metaphysics, probability, and belief. But it is, first
and foremost, a science, one to which we hope to apply the scientific
method.
[...]
The Scientific Method for the Argus search is this:
There are no ET's. (null hypothesis).
.... [W]e now design an experiment (Project Argus, for example) to try to
prove that statement wrong, recognizing that it takes only one clear,
unambiguous counter-example to reject the null hypothesis. ...
---
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: Mike Oliver tries to shift the burden of proof |
03 Aug 2003 01:57:24 AM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<H0vWa.29216$Vt6.11945@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0307311716.5749949e@posting.google.com...
"C Ketchikan" <cj@ket.net> wrote in message
news:<bpgWa.22030$Oz4.6195@rwcrnsc54>...
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0307200630.726b8619@posting.google.com...
... that any gods exist. ...
That any what exist, knucklehead?
Any 'gods'.
Any what? Define your term.
If you don't know what those are, I suggest that you ask
a poster commonly known in these parts as Septic Sophie the Crazed
Capon. He claims to know that 'gods do not exist' is a falsifiable
statement ...
The null hypothesis ("There is no X as hypothesized") is always falsifiABLE,
Mr. Dunce, though it is not always falsifiED in every case. Learn the
difference.
All you have to do to falsify "There is no X as hypothesized" is to define
your X and produce evidence of one. Meanwhile, the only reasonable
presumption ("There is no X as hypothesized") stands unscathed.
This is known as the scientific method of investigation. Ever heard of it?
Null : of, being, or relating to zero
www.m-w.com
(as in, "There are no ETs.")
---
Testing the Null Hypothesis
by John Marcus, MD
email
http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm
SETI is perhaps the most highly interdisciplinary of sciences,
encompassing not only astronomy, biology, engineering and physics, but
also psychology, metaphysics, probability, and belief. But it is, first
and foremost, a science, one to which we hope to apply the scientific
method.
[...]
The Scientific Method for the Argus search is this:
There are no ET's. (null hypothesis).
... [W]e now design an experiment (Project Argus, for example) to try to
prove that statement wrong, recognizing that it takes only one clear,
unambiguous counter-example to reject the null hypothesis. ...
---
Here' more from that web page you provided a link to:
"Let's see how the above applies to SETI. Do I have belief in ET's?
No, but I have a probability in mind. You may wish to phrase the
question differently: do I have a belief in the probability of ET's?
Yes I do. I wish to apply a test (the Argus search). There are other
tests. These may raise the probability, if the search succeeds. "
In other words, he thinks ET may exist.
Testing the null hypothesis does not mean that the scientist thinks
the possibility is zero. Few scientists would go looking for something
if they thought the possiblity of finding soemthing was zero. Ask an
oceanographer diving deep, or a peontologist digging for fossils, or
an astronomer searching the sky.
Sheesh.
--- Kermit
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: Mike Oliver tries to shift the burden of proof |
03 Aug 2003 09:35:05 AM |
|
|
(Kermit) wrote in message news:<1575bfdc.0308022257.7addcb8d@posting.google.com>...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<H0vWa.29216$Vt6.11945@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0307311716.5749949e@posting.google.com...
"C Ketchikan" <cj@ket.net> wrote in message
news:<bpgWa.22030$Oz4.6195@rwcrnsc54>...
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0307200630.726b8619@posting.google.com...
... that any gods exist. ...
That any what exist, knucklehead?
Any 'gods'. If you don't know what those are, I suggest that you ask
a poster commonly known in these parts as Septic Sophie the Crazed
Capon. He claims to know that 'gods do not exist' is a falsifiable
statement ...
All you have to do to falsify "There is no X as hypothesized" is to define
your X and produce evidence of one. Meanwhile, the only reasonable
presumption ("There is no X as hypothesized") stands unscathed.
This is known as the scientific method of investigation. Ever heard of it?
Null : of, being, or relating to zero
www.m-w.com
(as in, "There are no ETs.")
---
Testing the Null Hypothesis
by John Marcus, MD
email
http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm
SETI is perhaps the most highly interdisciplinary of sciences,
encompassing not only astronomy, biology, engineering and physics, but
also psychology, metaphysics, probability, and belief. But it is, first
and foremost, a science, one to which we hope to apply the scientific
method.
[...]
The Scientific Method for the Argus search is this:
There are no ET's. (null hypothesis).
... [W]e now design an experiment (Project Argus, for example) to try to
prove that statement wrong, recognizing that it takes only one clear,
unambiguous counter-example to reject the null hypothesis. ...
---
Here' more from that web page you provided a link to:
"Let's see how the above applies to SETI. Do I have belief in ET's?
No, but I have a probability in mind. You may wish to phrase the
question differently: do I have a belief in the probability of ET's?
Yes I do. I wish to apply a test (the Argus search). There are other
tests. These may raise the probability, if the search succeeds. "
In other words, he thinks ET may exist.
Excellent work. It has already been shown that Septic Sophie has been
misrepresenting Huxley through selective quotation; and now you've
shown that he has also been misrepresenting Marcus the same way.
Testing the null hypothesis does not mean that the scientist thinks
the possibility is zero. Few scientists would go looking for something
if they thought the possiblity of finding soemthing was zero. Ask an
oceanographer diving deep, or a peontologist digging for fossils, or
an astronomer searching the sky.
Sheesh.
--- Kermit
Maybe one should call it Septic Science (to accompany Septic Logic).
In SS, one doesn't actually 'test' any hypotheses; all that's
necessary is to formulate one, and then one has knowledge. It's a
claim of gnosis - certain knowledge not based on reasoning or evidence
- no different from the theist belief in divine revelation.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Mike Oliver tries to shift the burden of proof |
02 Aug 2003 07:23:32 AM |
|
|
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0308020353.1b4b8634@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<H0vWa.29216$Vt6.11945@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0307311716.5749949e@posting.google.com...
"C Ketchikan" <cj@ket.net> wrote in message
news:<bpgWa.22030$Oz4.6195@rwcrnsc54>...
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0307200630.726b8619@posting.google.com...
... that any gods exist. ...
That any what exist, knucklehead?
Any 'gods'.
Any what? Define your term.
If you don't know what those are, I suggest that you ask
a poster commonly known in these parts as Septic Sophie the Crazed
Capon. He claims to know that 'gods do not exist' is a falsifiable
statement ...
The null hypothesis ("There is no X as hypothesized") is always
falsifiABLE,
Mr. Dunce, though it is not always falsifiED in every case. Learn the
difference.
All you have to do to falsify "There is no X as hypothesized" is to
define
your X and produce evidence of one.
So do that.
It is not up to anyone but you to define your term 'gods', knucklehead.
Meanwhile, the only reasonable
presumption ("There is no X as hypothesized") stands unscathed.
What does that mean?
It means what it says, knucklehead.
In the case of any hypothetical thing, "X" not in evidence, the null
hypothesis ("There is no X as hypothesized") is always falsifiABLE,
Mr. Dunce, though it is not always falsifiED in every case. Learn the
difference.
All you have to do to falsify "There is no X as hypothesized" is to define
your X and produce evidence of one. Meanwhile, the only reasonable
presumption ("There is no X as hypothesized") stands unscathed.
This is known as the scientific method of investigation. Ever heard of it?
Null : of, being, or relating to zero
www.m-w.com
(as in, "There are no ETs.")
---
Testing the Null Hypothesis
by John Marcus, MD
email
http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm
SETI is perhaps the most highly interdisciplinary of sciences,
encompassing not only astronomy, biology, engineering and physics, but
also psychology, metaphysics, probability, and belief. But it is, first
and foremost, a science, one to which we hope to apply the scientific
method.
[...]
The Scientific Method for the Argus search is this:
There are no ET's. (null hypothesis).
.... [W]e now design an experiment (Project Argus, for example) to try to
prove that statement wrong, recognizing that it takes only one clear,
unambiguous counter-example to reject the null hypothesis. ...
---
This is known as the scientific method of investigation.
It certainly is not, as your own quote shows:
<quote>
---
Testing the Null Hypothesis
by John Marcus, MD
email
http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm
[...]
The Scientific Method for the Argus search is this:
There are no ET's. (null hypothesis).
... [W]e now design an experiment (Project Argus, for example) to try to
prove that statement wrong, recognizing that it takes only one clear,
unambiguous counter-example to reject the null hypothesis. ...
---
</quote>
Notice the difference: Marcus does not try to claim that the null
hypothesis is true due to being 'unscathed' before doing any
experiments; rather, he 'design[s] an experiment to try to prove that
statement wrong.' Without experiment, his hypothesis could be either
true or false; and without an implicit definition of ET's, it is
neither, as it is not even a meaningful statement.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: Mike Oliver tries to shift the burden of proof |
03 Aug 2003 07:56:13 AM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<83OWa.33002$cF.11674@rwcrnsc53>...
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0308020353.1b4b8634@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<H0vWa.29216$Vt6.11945@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0307311716.5749949e@posting.google.com...
"C Ketchikan" <cj@ket.net> wrote in message
news:<bpgWa.22030$Oz4.6195@rwcrnsc54>...
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0307200630.726b8619@posting.google.com...
... that any gods exist. ...
That any what exist, knucklehead?
Any 'gods'.
Any what? Define your term.
If you don't know what those are, I suggest that you ask
a poster commonly known in these parts as Septic Sophie the Crazed
Capon. He claims to know that 'gods do not exist' is a falsifiable
statement ...
The null hypothesis ("There is no X as hypothesized") is always
falsifiABLE,
Mr. Dunce, though it is not always falsifiED in every case. Learn the
difference.
All you have to do to falsify "There is no X as hypothesized" is to
define
your X and produce evidence of one.
So do that. Until you do, "there is no X as hypothesized" says
nothing at all.
It is not up to anyone but you to define your term 'gods', knucklehead.
Why's that? It's your claim, and your hypothesis.
Meanwhile, the only reasonable
presumption ("There is no X as hypothesized") stands unscathed.
What does that mean? Your presumption is certainly not true; it's not
even a meaningful statement.
It means what it says, knucklehead.
It doesn't say anything either. Propositions don't 'stand' any more
than they walk; and they can't be 'scathed' any more than they can be
blue.
If you're not doing anything other than simply arguing that your
'presumption' is true unless proven false, you should be able to
explain what that is.
In the case of any hypothetical thing, "X" not in evidence, the null
hypothesis ("There is no X as hypothesized") is always falsifiABLE,
Mr. Dunce, though it is not always falsifiED in every case.
Then show how it is falsifiable ("can be falsified") in this case.
Learn the
difference.
All you have to do to falsify "There is no X as hypothesized" is to define
your X and produce evidence of one.
So define your X. Until you do, "there is no X as hypothesized" says
nothing at all.
Meanwhile, the only reasonable
presumption ("There is no X as hypothesized") stands unscathed.
Which, as I've pointed out already, is a meaningless statement.
This is known as the scientific method of investigation.
It certainly is not, as your own quote shows:
<quote>
---
Testing the Null Hypothesis
by John Marcus, MD
email
http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm
[...]
The Scientific Method for the Argus search is this:
There are no ET's. (null hypothesis).
... [W]e now design an experiment (Project Argus, for example) to try to
prove that statement wrong, recognizing that it takes only one clear,
unambiguous counter-example to reject the null hypothesis. ...
---
</quote>
Notice the difference: Marcus does not try to claim that the null
hypothesis is true due to being 'unscathed' before doing any
experiments; rather, he 'design[s] an experiment to try to prove that
statement wrong.' Without experiment, his hypothesis could be either
true or false; and without an implicit definition of ET's, it is
neither, as it is not even a meaningful statement.
Ever heard of it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Mike Oliver tries to shift the burden of proof |
03 Aug 2003 10:43:11 AM |
|
|
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0308030456.7df3ddfc@posting.google.com...
If you're not doing anything other than simply arguing that your
'presumption' is true unless proven false ...
You still don't get it. I am not "arguing" anything, I am simply pointing
out the principle of valid argument (logic) that any existential proposition
like "An invisible gawd may in reality exist" automatically carries a
presumption of false, by default. Can't have a presumption of true. That
would be begging the question, knucklehead.
The scientific method of investigation:
Null : of, being, or relating to zero
www.m-w.com
(as in, "There are no ETs.")
---
Testing the Null Hypothesis
by John Marcus, MD
email
http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm
SETI is perhaps the most highly interdisciplinary of sciences,
encompassing not only astronomy, biology, engineering and physics, but
also psychology, metaphysics, probability, and belief. But it is, first
and foremost, a science, one to which we hope to apply the scientific
method.
[...]
The Scientific Method for the Argus search is this:
There are no ET's. (null hypothesis).
.... [W]e now design an experiment (Project Argus, for example) to try to
prove that statement wrong, recognizing that it takes only one clear,
unambiguous counter-example to reject the null hypothesis. ...
---
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: Mike Oliver tries to shift the burden of proof |
05 Aug 2003 07:45:25 PM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<j4aXa.40824$It4.23467@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0308030456.7df3ddfc@posting.google.com...
If you're not doing anything other than simply arguing that your
'presumption' is true unless proven false ...
You still don't get it. I am not "arguing" anything, I am simply pointing
out the principle of valid argument (logic) that any existential proposition
like "An invisible gawd may in reality exist" automatically carries a
presumption of false, by default.
It certainly looks like an argument to me:
1. Any existential proposition automatically carries a presumption of
false.
-----------------
2. 'A god may exist' automatically carries a presumption of false.
It doesn't look like a sound argument (as there's no evidence for 1)
nor a valid one (as 'God may exist' is not an existential
proposition). But I've not claimed that it was either sound nor
valid, just that it was an argument.
Can't have a presumption of true. That
would be begging the question, knucklehead.
The scientific method of investigation:
Null : of, being, or relating to zero
www.m-w.com
(as in, "There are no ETs.")
---
Testing the Null Hypothesis
by John Marcus, MD
email
http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm
SETI is perhaps the most highly interdisciplinary of sciences,
encompassing not only astronomy, biology, engineering and physics, but
also psychology, metaphysics, probability, and belief. But it is, first
and foremost, a science, one to which we hope to apply the scientific
method.
[...]
The Scientific Method for the Argus search is this:
There are no ET's. (null hypothesis).
... [W]e now design an experiment (Project Argus, for example) to try to
prove that statement wrong, recognizing that it takes only one clear,
unambiguous counter-example to reject the null hypothesis. ...
---
Yet Marcus does not presume that "ET's may exist" is false; in fact he
presumes that it is true:
<quote>
"Let's see how the above applies to SETI. Do I have belief in ET's?
No, but I have a probability in mind. You may wish to phrase the
question differently: do I have a belief in the probability of ET's?
Yes I do. I wish to apply a test (the Argus search). There are other
tests. These may raise the probability, if the search succeeds. "
</quote>
So which is it: is Marcus not a scientist, or is your idea of a
'reasonable default presumption of false' merely something you've made
up?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Mike Oliver tries to shift the burden of proof |
06 Aug 2003 05:49:36 AM |
|
|
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0308051645.507336bc@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<j4aXa.40824$It4.23467@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0308030456.7df3ddfc@posting.google.com...
If you're not doing anything other than simply arguing that your
'presumption' is true unless proven false ...
You still don't get it. I am not "arguing" anything, I am simply
pointing
out the principle of valid argument (logic) that any existential
proposition
like "An invisible gawd may in reality exist" automatically carries a
presumption of false, by default.
It certainly looks like an argument to me ...
Nawwww, it is a principle of valid argument (logic), knucklehead. Did you
miss the day this principle was covered?
Here, have a look at my notes:
"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
A presumption that something is false until it has been proved true is a
basic scientific principle because it is a basic principle of logic. The
principle is that the full burden of proof in the matter of any existential
proposition like "An invisible something not in evidence may exist anyway"
is always on the ones who are party to the assertion. The burden of proof
can never be shifted to the denial, the negation in logic, "False":
"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: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: Mike Oliver tries to shift the burden of proof |
07 Aug 2003 06:26:02 PM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<435Ya.52531$Oz4.14476@rwcrnsc54>...
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0308051645.507336bc@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<j4aXa.40824$It4.23467@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0308030456.7df3ddfc@posting.google.com...
If you're not doing anything other than simply arguing that your
'presumption' is true unless proven false ...
You still don't get it. I am not "arguing" anything, I am simply
pointing
out the principle of valid argument (logic) that any existential
proposition
like "An invisible gawd may in reality exist" automatically carries a
presumption of false, by default.
It certainly looks like an argument to me ...
as I explained:
1. Any existential proposition automatically carries a presumption of
false.
2. 'A god may exist' automatically carries a presumption of false.
-------------------------------
3. 'A god may exist' is false.
It doesn't look like a sound argument (as there's no evidence for 1)
nor a valid one (as 'God may exist' is not an existential
proposition). But I've not claimed that it was either sound nor
valid, just that it was an argument.
Nawwww, it is a principle of valid argument (logic), knucklehead.
That is your justification of your premise. As I've said, it's one
I'm challenging.
Did you
miss the day this principle was covered?
Actually, you claim this 'principle' at least once a day; though
you've not done much more than claim it. It reminds me of the Big Lie
technique.
Here, have a look at my notes:
"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
This quote does not say that arguing "that something must be false
because it has not been proved true" is a principle. It says that
arguing "that something must be false because it has not been proved
true" is a fallacy. In logic, 'fallacy' and 'principle' do not mean
the same thing.
A presumption that something is false until it has been proved true is a
basic scientific principle because it is a basic principle of logic.
According to the quote you just posted, that 'presumption is not a
principle but a fallacy. And, as the same quote points out, that
quote is not the same as the 'scientific principle' of hypothesizing
(not assuming) 'that something is false until it is proven true (as we
just finished covering in
news:6312c50b.0308051645.507336bc@posting.google.com)
The
principle is that the full burden of proof in the matter of any existential
proposition like "An invisible something not in evidence may exist anyway"
is always on the ones who are party to the assertion. The burden of proof
can never be shifted to the denial, the negation in logic, "False":
Oh, goody; you've claimed the same 'principle' once again.
"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
So an "Atheist Logic" page claims a 'special case' of the argument
from ignorance (where 'the assumption that something is true unless
proven otherwise' is a fallacy, but the assumption that something is
false unless proven otherwise is not. Am I supposed to be impressed?
Can't have a presumption of true.
What reason is there to have a 'presumption' at all?
That
would be begging the question, knucklehead.
And you think that your inference from 2 to 3 (above) does not beg the
question?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
