| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Roger Roaster" |
| Date: |
30 Jul 2003 05:32:07 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Septic messes up on MIGHT versus MUST |
Virgil <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<vmhjr2-840250.20042225072003@blade.randori.com>...
In article <b0ef066.0307251325.386c2043@posting.google.com>,
roaster4001@hotmail.com (Roger Roaster) wrote:
Virgil <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<vmhjr2-586563.00434025072003@blade.randori.com>...
I know that the difference is way too subtle for Septic Sophy's
sensibilities, so he has missed the point of those remarks.
Your constant reliance on Argumentum ad Hominem (All you seem to know how to
write) is what is supremely predictable, son. You need to do some work on
your style. Ever thought of trying reasonable argument for a change?
I am merely emulating Septic, the master sophist of sci.skeptic.
When he posts something reasonalbe, I shall feel constrained to
follow.
All there is is a one-sided assertion with no basis in fact from you and
your nitwit pals. The actual state of affairs is that you and your pals are
trying to sell the idea that atheism and agnosticism are religions, just like
Christianity, or any other belief (faith in the truth of a proposition, as
the tenets of a religion, not supported by logical proof or material evidence).
Argumentum ad Hominem like that does not support in any way the alleged
truth of your proposition that a god really exists and legislated the laws
of the universe. It is simply logical fallacy. See :
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#hominem
For an example of Septic's sophistry, and an example of Septic's
argumentum ad hominem, he (you) accuses me of claiming that some god
really exists, but I have not done that.
Septic Sophy says that his magic invisible sky pixies do not exist
and thta no one else's conception of gods does either. In support of
this claim septic the Capon offers no evidence.
Your presumption is unreasonable, illogical, as I have explained before, in
that you ignore the prohibition (Pettitio Principii) against presuming the
very thing that is to be proven, the existence of your alleged god, while
the existence of it is in question.
Where in my statement have I presumed that any god existed?
You brought it up, not me. Right here:
For an example of Septic's sophistry, and an example of Septic's
argumentum ad hominem, he (you) accuses me of claiming that some
god really exists, but I have not done that.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[snip irrelevant argument ad hominem]
No. I think Huxley was exceptionally clear headed, unlike the brain
damaged Septic.
As usual, Gerbil does not understand what is being discussed, so he just
tosses some _ad homenim_ arguement into the thread. Just empty allegations,
and slander, and you know it, Gerbil. The true-believers like you are forced
to present argument _ad hominem_, becuase they cannot present sound reason for
thier beleifs (their publicly stated faith in the truth of) their unsupported
propositions. And please stop calling me "septic", you *****-shovelling
whoremonger. That is just more of your argument _ad hominem_, and doesn't
support your argument in any way, as you know.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#hominem
Stop changing the subject and deal with the following questions, knucklehead:
Who brings the existence of invisible sky-pixies into question in the first
place, theists or atheists?
Who has the full burden of proof in the matter of their alleged invisible
sky-pixies, the true-believers, or the non-believers?
Are there any invisible sky-pixies in evidence?
.
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Principles |
23 Aug 2003 09:11:39 PM |
|
|
In article <rIS1b.238993$uu5.49363@sccrnsc04>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
Is keeping track of your aliases becoming too much for you?
You believe everyone who disagrees with your nonsense is the same person?
The evidence so far favors that hypothesis. if Septic the Capon has
evidence to the contrary, he has yet to present it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Principles |
23 Aug 2003 10:00:25 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-F22C0E.20113923082003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <rIS1b.238993$uu5.49363@sccrnsc04>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
Is keeping track of your aliases becoming too much for you?
You believe everyone who disagrees with your nonsense is the same
person?
The evidence so far favors that hypothesis.
No sir, it does not. I am definitely not "lensman1955" as you and that other
knucklehead, SlowCode allege.
if Septic the Capon has
evidence to the contrary, he has yet to present it.
There you go, typical theist, always trying to shift the burden of proof to
the denial (negation in logic www.m-w.com ).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Principles |
23 Aug 2003 10:48:46 PM |
|
|
In article <dTV1b.239398$YN5.162152@sccrnsc01>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-F22C0E.20113923082003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <rIS1b.238993$uu5.49363@sccrnsc04>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
Is keeping track of your aliases becoming too much for you?
You believe everyone who disagrees with your nonsense is the same
person?
The evidence so far favors that hypothesis.
No sir, it does not. I am definitely not "lensman1955" as you and that other
knucklehead, SlowCode allege.
With all the great multitude of faces Septic the Capon has worn, he
might has lost track of a few. He isn't the brightest capon on the
chicken farm.
if Septic the Capon has
evidence to the contrary, he has yet to present it.
There you go, typical theist, always trying to shift the burden of proof to
the denial (negation in logic www.m-w.com ).
There Septic the Capon goes with his lies again. Theists generally
ignore pests like Septic the Capon as impotent idiots, a view also
held by most agnostics like me. But I find it fun to poke holes in
Septic the Capon's arrogant errors. Like his claiming that he
doesn't care that there is no proof for his imaginary hypothesis
that there are no gods.
If Septic the Capon cares, it is Septic the Capon's responsibility
to prove it. If Septic the Capon doesn't care, why does he push it
so hard?
Septic the Capon is a phony, pretending all sorts of knowledge he
has proved he does not have.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "lensman1955" |
|
| Title: Re: Principles |
24 Aug 2003 08:34:57 PM |
|
|
soCode <news@socode.com> wrote in message news:<bi86mo$f85$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>...
lensman1955 wrote:
Hang on. I'm not the one who said it.
And "lensman1955" isn't the one I replied to.
Is keeping track of your aliases becoming too much for you?
soCode
Sorry, I've got two aliases, EdRhodes and lensman1955. It seemed to me
that your comment about bearing false witness was address to
"EdRhodes" who is also me.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
26 Aug 2003 11:42:28 AM |
|
|
(lensman1955) wrote in message news:<633b063b.0308200747.46eac305@posting.google.com>...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<M9t0b.152233$It4.76269@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
"lensman1955" < > wrote in message
news:633b063b.0308190456.1aff74a6@posting.google.com...
... But don't try to tell me I have
to back up faith with evidence ...
Nobody has to tell you, it's a principle of valid argument (logic) that
applies to any existential proposition like, "An invisible X may in reality
exist, though I cannot demonstrate any such thing."
But it's a principal of argument in stating a theory of fact, not
faith. If faith has to be proven by evidence, then it's simply not
faith!
It's not a matter of 'evidence,' but a matter of 'reasons' ('X is
evidence of Y' meaning that 'Believing or knowing X is a reason to
believe or know Y').
Suppose a biologist told me that there were over 5,000,000 species of
insects. I'd probably believe that, even though there was no way that
I could personally count the number of species - I'd have no evidence,
so I'd believe the biologist only on faith. But that would not mean
that there were no reasons for my faith; in fact I'd have good
reasons: I would expect the biologist to have studied the literature,
and be aware of facts that I did not have.
Faith, then, is not an alternative to reason - faith in someone or
something can also be either rational (based on reasons) or
irrational, and justified (if the reasons are good enough) or
unjustified.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
26 Aug 2003 01:35:29 PM |
|
|
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0308260842.cbbe5c3@posting.google.com...
lensman1955@hotmail.com (lensman1955) wrote in message
news:<633b063b.0308200747.46eac305@posting.google.com>...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<M9t0b.152233$It4.76269@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
"lensman1955" <lensman1955@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:633b063b.0308190456.1aff74a6@posting.google.com...
... But don't try to tell me I have
to back up faith with evidence ...
Nobody has to tell you, it's a principle of valid argument (logic)
that
applies to any existential proposition like, "An invisible X may in
reality
exist, though I cannot demonstrate any such thing."
But it's a principal of argument in stating a theory of fact, not
faith. If faith has to be proven by evidence, then it's simply not
faith!
It's not a matter of 'evidence,' but a matter of 'reasons' ...
Evidence and reason are tied together.
Since there is no evidence of any gods, no evidence that "An invisible god
may exist" is a true statement, then there is no sound reason to say one
believes that there may be an invisible god, so it is morally wrong (bearing
false witness) for one to insist that he has reason to believe that an
invisible god may exist.
"This principle [the agnostic principle] may be stated in various ways, but
they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say that he is
certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce
evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what Agnosticism
asserts; and, in my opinion, it is all that is essential to Agnosticism.
That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without
logically satisfactory evidence. ... It was inevitable that a conflict
should arise between Agnosticism and Theology" -- Thomas Huxley, who coined
the term 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian belief,
"Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
27 Aug 2003 01:51:22 PM |
|
|
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0308270843.7ea00174@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<RLN2b.204342$Oz4.54276@rwcrnsc54>...
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0308260842.cbbe5c3@posting.google.com...
lensman1955@hotmail.com (lensman1955) wrote in message
news:<633b063b.0308200747.46eac305@posting.google.com>...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<M9t0b.152233$It4.76269@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
"lensman1955" <lensman1955@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:633b063b.0308190456.1aff74a6@posting.google.com...
... But don't try to tell me I have
to back up faith with evidence ...
Nobody has to tell you, it's a principle of valid argument (logic)
that
applies to any existential proposition like, "An invisible X may
in
reality
exist, though I cannot demonstrate any such thing."
But it's a princip[le] of argument in stating a theory of fact, not
faith. If faith has to be proven by evidence, then it's simply not
faith!
It's not a matter of 'evidence,' but a matter of 'reasons' ...
Evidence and reason are tied together.
Reason is what 'ties' alleged evidence to conclusions. If there is
evidence of X, that is a reason to conclude X. If there is no
evidence of X, that is not a reason to conclude non-X - the last is
simply fallacious argument from ignorance.
Straw man.
Nobody is suggesting "conclude that 'An invisible god may in reality exist'
is false." The principle is that it must be presumed false until it is
proved true. There is a big difference between 'conclusion' and 'reasonable
presumption'.
The principle is that any existential proposition like that is reasonably
assumed/presumed (like the default _presumption_ of not guilty in criminal
court) false unless proven true, since the full burden of proof in the
matter is always on the affirmative (the burden of proof cannot be shifted
to the negation under any pretext).
Here is the principle of valid argument which governs:
"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
Double check that last sentence. "Note that this is not the same as assuming
that something is false until it has been proved true, a basic scientific
principle." Nothing is said there about any argument or conclusion, is
there? The word is 'assuming.'
You can give up building your straw man. That won't work here.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
28 Aug 2003 10:19:14 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0308271422.688af9db@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<K473b.213704$It4.99228@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0308270843.7ea00174@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<RLN2b.204342$Oz4.54276@rwcrnsc54>...
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0308260842.cbbe5c3@posting.google.com...
lensman1955@hotmail.com (lensman1955) wrote in message
news:<633b063b.0308200747.46eac305@posting.google.com>...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<M9t0b.152233$It4.76269@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
"lensman1955" <lensman1955@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:633b063b.0308190456.1aff74a6@posting.google.com...
... But don't try to tell me I have
to back up faith with evidence ...
Nobody has to tell you, it's a principle of valid argument
(logic)
that
applies to any existential proposition like, "An invisible X
may
in
reality
exist, though I cannot demonstrate any such thing."
But it's a princip[le] of argument in stating a theory of fact,
not
faith. If faith has to be proven by evidence, then it's simply
not
faith!
It's not a matter of 'evidence,' but a matter of 'reasons' ...
Evidence and reason are tied together.
Reason is what 'ties' alleged evidence to conclusions. If there is
evidence of X, that is a reason to conclude X. If there is no
evidence of X, that is not a reason to conclude non-X - the last is
simply fallacious argument from ignorance.
Straw man.
Nobody is suggesting "conclude that 'An invisible god may in reality
exist'
is false." The principle is that it must be presumed false until it is
proved true. There is a big difference between 'conclusion' and 'reasonable
presumption'.
The principle is that any existential proposition like that is reasonably
assumed/presumed (like the default _presumption_ of not guilty in criminal
court) false unless proven true, since the full burden of proof in the
matter is always on the affirmative (the burden of proof cannot be shifted
to the negation under any pretext).
Here is the principle of valid argument which governs:
"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
Double check that last sentence. "Note that this is not the same as assuming
that something is false until it has been proved true, a basic scientific
principle." Nothing is said there about any argument or conclusion, is
there? The word is 'assuming.'
You can give up building your straw man. That won't work here.
You have concluded that there is such a principle, Septic.
I didn't invent this principle of valid argument (logic), sir; it was
discovered eons ago. Didn't your daddy show you the ropes? Tsk tsk.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
29 Aug 2003 09:13:07 AM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<S3p3b.121293$2x.34893@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0308271422.688af9db@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<K473b.213704$It4.99228@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0308270843.7ea00174@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<RLN2b.204342$Oz4.54276@rwcrnsc54>...
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0308260842.cbbe5c3@posting.google.com...
lensman1955@hotmail.com (lensman1955) wrote in message
news:<633b063b.0308200747.46eac305@posting.google.com>...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<M9t0b.152233$It4.76269@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
"lensman1955" <lensman1955@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:633b063b.0308190456.1aff74a6@posting.google.com...
... But don't try to tell me I have
to back up faith with evidence ...
Nobody has to tell you, it's a principle of valid argument
(logic)
that
applies to any existential proposition like, "An invisible X
may
in
reality
exist, though I cannot demonstrate any such thing."
But it's a princip[le] of argument in stating a theory of fact,
not
faith. If faith has to be proven by evidence, then it's simply
not
faith!
It's not a matter of 'evidence,' but a matter of 'reasons' ...
Evidence and reason are tied together.
Reason is what 'ties' alleged evidence to conclusions. If there is
evidence of X, that is a reason to conclude X. If there is no
evidence of X, that is not a reason to conclude non-X - the last is
simply fallacious argument from ignorance.
Straw man.
Nobody is suggesting "conclude that 'An invisible god may in reality
exist'
is false." The principle is that it must be presumed false
You have concluded that there is such a principle, Septic.
I didn't invent
Yes, you did, Septic. There is no such principle. You took a real
principle and modified it so as to invent something which is not a
principle. And your inability to find _any_ support for your version
_anywhere_ means that even if your "principle" were a principle, you
must presume that it is false. Doh!
Septic remains the completely self-refuting, mendacious, and
discredited old idiot fool liar of alt.atheism.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
29 Aug 2003 10:25:30 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0308290613.5261ef25@posting.google.com...
... You took a real
principle and modified it ...
What do you believe I have modified? All I have done is simply post the
following, verbatim. See where it says in the last sentence that assuming
(not arguing) that something like your existential proposition, "God exists"
is false until proved true is a basic scientific principle?
"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
And why is it a basic scientific principle? Because it is the right thing to
do, knucklehead. The burden of proof is always on those who are a party to
any asserton like yours, "God exists."
"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: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
29 Aug 2003 04:19:40 PM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<KfK3b.226178$It4.108036@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0308290613.5261ef25@posting.google.com...
... You took a real
principle and modified it ...
What do you believe I have modified?
It has been demonstrated that you changed "scientific" to "logical"
and that you changed "assume" to "must presume", Septic. You are dumb
or playing dumb or both.
Septic remains the completely refuted, exposed, fallacious,
mendacious, and discredited old idiot fool lying knucklehead of
alt.atheism.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
29 Aug 2003 06:05:23 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0308291319.96ef8b2@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<KfK3b.226178$It4.108036@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0308290613.5261ef25@posting.google.com...
... You took a real
principle and modified it ...
What do you believe I have modified?
It has been demonstrated that you changed "scientific" to "logical"
Where? What are you taking about? It really is called the logical,
scientific method of investigation, knucklehead. Popper even wrote a big
book titled, _The Logic of Scientific Discovery_.
and that you changed "assume" to "must presume"
Where?
Where's any evidence supporting either of those empty allegations with no
basis in fact?
What is it that you want now, that everyone must presume that I am guilty
unless proven innocent?
You just dont get these principles of valid argument (logic), do you, sir?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
30 Aug 2003 08:05:43 AM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<T_Q3b.299623$o%2.138178@sccrnsc02>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0308291319.96ef8b2@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<KfK3b.226178$It4.108036@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0308290613.5261ef25@posting.google.com...
... You took a real
principle and modified it ...
What do you believe I have modified?
It has been demonstrated that you changed "scientific" to "logical"
It really is called the logical, scientific method
Fallacy of Equivocation (conflation) from Septic then. The fact that
the scientific method is logical for its purpose does entail that the
scientific method dictates what is logical.
and that you changed "assume" to "must presume"
The quote says "assuming" something false. Septic says "must presume"
false. It is demonstrated in the google archive for everyone to see.
Septic remains the completely fallacious, mendacious, and discredited
old idiot fool liar of alt.atheism. As demonstrated.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
30 Aug 2003 09:03:23 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0308300505.500f1829@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<T_Q3b.299623$o%2.138178@sccrnsc02>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0308291319.96ef8b2@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<KfK3b.226178$It4.108036@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0308290613.5261ef25@posting.google.com...
... You took a real
principle and modified it ...
What do you believe I have modified?
It has been demonstrated that you changed "scientific" to "logical"
It really is called the logical, scientific method
Fallacy of Equivocation (conflation) from Septic then. The fact that
the scientific method is logical for its purpose does entail that the
scientific method dictates what is logical.
You think it DOES entail that? I don't think so.
The principles of valid argument (logic) set forth what is a valid logical
argument. The logical, scientific method of investigation simply follows
procedures in accord with what is set forth as logical procedures in the
principles of valid argument.
and that you changed "assume" to "must presume"
The quote says "assuming" something false. ...
Here it is again, just to refresh everyone's memory as to what we are
discussing.
"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
So, assuming that something is false until it has been proved true is not
logical fallacy, it is a basic principle of the logical, scientific method
of investigation, since that is what is set forth in the principles of valid
argument (logic).
"False" is the only reasonable default presumption, knucklehead. Can't have
a default presumption of true adhering to all propositions like for example,
"It is true that a magic invisible X may in reality exist" (where X is some
hypothetical imagining not in evidence). Assuming it is true by default
would be begging the question (assuming the desired conclusion as a
premise).
So, it is only reasonable that there be a default presumption of false until
proved true adhering to any such proposition. It's cannot be optional.
Any serious questions on this point, or do you just want to go back to
relying on your standard argument _ad hominem_ which you continue to post ad
nauseam? 8^)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
02 Sep 2003 12:44:42 PM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<LHc4b.309894$o%2.142209@sccrnsc02>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0308300505.500f1829@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<T_Q3b.299623$o%2.138178@sccrnsc02>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0308291319.96ef8b2@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<KfK3b.226178$It4.108036@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0308290613.5261ef25@posting.google.com...
... You took a real
principle and modified it ...
What do you believe I have modified?
It has been demonstrated that you changed "scientific" to "logical"
It really is called the logical, scientific method
Fallacy of Equivocation (conflation) from Septic then. The fact that
the scientific method is logical for its purpose does entail that the
scientific method dictates what is logical.
You think it DOES entail that?
Typo, obviously.
and that you changed "assume" to "must presume"
The quote says "assuming" something false. ...
Here it is again, just to refresh everyone's memory as to what we are
discussing.
"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
Yep, it says "assuming that something is false", just as I said. It
doesn't say "must presume false". You modified a real principle into
something which is not a principle, just as I said, Septic.
So, assuming that something is false until it has been proved true is not
logical fallacy, it is a basic principle of the logical, scientific method
of investigation,
That's not what it says. You've modified "scientific principle" into
"principle of the logical, scientific method of investigation", and
then you conclude that since science happens to be logical, that this
scientific principle (with "assuming" changed to "must presume") is a
principle of logic. Bzzzzzzt. And Bzzzzzzzzzzt. Double Fallacy of
Equivocation, Septic. It doesn't get much clearer than that.
"Science is logical" does not entail "Science is Logic". And
"assuming" does not mean "must presume".
Septic remains the completely fallacious, mendacious, confused, and
discredited old idiot fool lying loser of alt.atheism. As
demonstrated on google daily.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
02 Sep 2003 05:24:59 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0309020944.4a91a88e@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<LHc4b.309894$o%2.142209@sccrnsc02>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0308300505.500f1829@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<T_Q3b.299623$o%2.138178@sccrnsc02>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0308291319.96ef8b2@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<KfK3b.226178$It4.108036@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0308290613.5261ef25@posting.google.com...
... You took a real
principle and modified it ...
What do you believe I have modified?
It has been demonstrated that you changed "scientific" to
"logical"
It really is called the logical, scientific method
Fallacy of Equivocation (conflation) from Septic then. The fact that
the scientific method is logical for its purpose does entail that the
scientific method dictates what is logical.
You think it DOES entail that?
Typo, obviously.
and that you changed "assume" to "must presume"
The quote says "assuming" something false. ...
Here it is again, just to refresh everyone's memory as to what we are
discussing.
"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
Yep, it says "assuming that something is false", just as I said.
An assumption/presumption that it is false is the only reasonable default
assumption/presumption, sir.
Can't have a default presumption that the theory in question is true. That
would be begging the question.
Take SETI Argus for example, where the theory is that "ETs may in reality
exist" where the only reasonable presumption is the null, "There are no
ETs."
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: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
03 Sep 2003 12:07:15 PM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<%M85b.256618$It4.119337@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0309020944.4a91a88e@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<LHc4b.309894$o%2.142209@sccrnsc02>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0308300505.500f1829@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<T_Q3b.299623$o%2.138178@sccrnsc02>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0308291319.96ef8b2@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<KfK3b.226178$It4.108036@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0308290613.5261ef25@posting.google.com...
... You took a real
principle and modified it ...
What do you believe I have modified?
It has been demonstrated that you changed "scientific" to
"logical"
It really is called the logical, scientific method
Fallacy of Equivocation (conflation) from Septic then. The fact that
the scientific method is logical for its purpose does entail that the
scientific method dictates what is logical.
You think it DOES entail that?
Typo, obviously.
and that you changed "assume" to "must presume"
The quote says "assuming" something false. ...
Here it is again, just to refresh everyone's memory as to what we are
discussing.
"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
Yep, it says "assuming that something is false", just as I said.
An assumption/presumption that it is false is the only reasonable default
assumption/presumption,
The quote doesn't say anything about defaults, let alone anything
about "the only reasonable default". Those are all modifications by
Septic, just as I said. As is the modification from "scientific" to
"logical". _None_ of those modifications is supported by _anything_
Septic has posted. Therefore those modifications are reasonably
presumed false. Doh!
Septic remains the competely self-refuting, mendacious, refuted,
fallacious, and discredited old idiot fool lying loser of alt.atheism.
Get the picture?
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
03 Sep 2003 01:45:48 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0309030907.1b31f98d@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<%M85b.256618$It4.119337@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0309020944.4a91a88e@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<LHc4b.309894$o%2.142209@sccrnsc02>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0308300505.500f1829@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<T_Q3b.299623$o%2.138178@sccrnsc02>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0308291319.96ef8b2@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<KfK3b.226178$It4.108036@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0308290613.5261ef25@posting.google.com...
... You took a real
principle and modified it ...
What do you believe I have modified?
It has been demonstrated that you changed "scientific" to
"logical"
It really is called the logical, scientific method
Fallacy of Equivocation (conflation) from Septic then. The fact
that
the scientific method is logical for its purpose does entail that
the
scientific method dictates what is logical.
You think it DOES entail that?
Typo, obviously.
and that you changed "assume" to "must presume"
The quote says "assuming" something false. ...
Here it is again, just to refresh everyone's memory as to what we
are
discussing.
"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
Yep, it says "assuming that something is false", just as I said.
An assumption/presumption that it is false is the only reasonable
default
assumption/presumption,
The quote doesn't say anything about defaults, let alone anything
about "the only reasonable default".
It's the logical, scientific method of investigation, sir. An
assumption/presumption that it is false is the only reasonable default
assumption/presumption. Can't have a default presumption that the theory in
question is true. That
would be begging the question.
Take SETI Argus for example, where the theory is that "ETs may in reality
exist" where the only reasonable presumption is the null, "There are no
ETs."
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: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 10:17:16 AM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<wFq5b.261341$Oz4.68592@rwcrnsc54>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0309030907.1b31f98d@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<%M85b.256618$It4.119337@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0309020944.4a91a88e@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<LHc4b.309894$o%2.142209@sccrnsc02>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0308300505.500f1829@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<T_Q3b.299623$o%2.138178@sccrnsc02>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0308291319.96ef8b2@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<KfK3b.226178$It4.108036@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0308290613.5261ef25@posting.google.com...
... You took a real
principle and modified it ...
What do you believe I have modified?
It has been demonstrated that you changed "scientific" to
"logical"
It really is called the logical, scientific method
Fallacy of Equivocation (conflation) from Septic then. The fact
that
the scientific method is logical for its purpose does entail that
the
scientific method dictates what is logical.
You think it DOES entail that?
Typo, obviously.
and that you changed "assume" to "must presume"
The quote says "assuming" something false. ...
Here it is again, just to refresh everyone's memory as to what we
are
discussing.
"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
Yep, it says "assuming that something is false", just as I said.
An assumption/presumption that it is false is the only reasonable
default
assumption/presumption,
The quote doesn't say anything about defaults, let alone anything
about "the only reasonable default".
It's the logical, scientific method of investigation,
The quote doesn't say that either. You've modified "basic scientific
principle" into "logical, scientific method of investigation". Again
we see you trying to fallaciously conflate "logical" and "scientific".
And we also see you trying to fallaciously inflate a "principle" into
a "method of investigation". Just as I said, you have modified an
actual principle such that it is no longer a principle at all, just a
figment of your delusional impaired contact with reality.
Septic remains the completely delusional, mendacious, fallacious, and
discredited old idiot fool lying loser of alt.atheism. Demonstrated
daily.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 10:42:10 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0309040717.252604c8@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<wFq5b.261341$Oz4.68592@rwcrnsc54>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0309030907.1b31f98d@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<%M85b.256618$It4.119337@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0309020944.4a91a88e@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<LHc4b.309894$o%2.142209@sccrnsc02>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0308300505.500f1829@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<T_Q3b.299623$o%2.138178@sccrnsc02>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0308291319.96ef8b2@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<KfK3b.226178$It4.108036@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0308290613.5261ef25@posting.google.com...
... You took a real
principle and modified it ...
What do you believe I have modified?
It has been demonstrated that you changed "scientific" to
"logical"
It really is called the logical, scientific method
Fallacy of Equivocation (conflation) from Septic then. The
fact
that
the scientific method is logical for its purpose does entail
that
the
scientific method dictates what is logical.
You think it DOES entail that?
Typo, obviously.
and that you changed "assume" to "must presume"
The quote says "assuming" something false. ...
Here it is again, just to refresh everyone's memory as to what
we
are
discussing.
"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
Yep, it says "assuming that something is false", just as I said.
An assumption/presumption that it is false is the only reasonable
default
assumption/presumption,
The quote doesn't say anything about defaults, let alone anything
about "the only reasonable default".
It's the logical, scientific method of investigation,
The quote doesn't say that either.
It doesn't have to. It goes without saying. Most everybody but you theist
knuckleheads knows all about the logical, scientific method of
investigation.
It's the logical, scientific method of investigation, sir. An
assumption/presumption that it is false is the only reasonable default
assumption/presumption. Can't have a default presumption that the theory in
question is true. That would be begging the question.
Take SETI Argus for example, where the theory is that "ETs may in reality
exist" where the only reasonable presumption is the null, "There are no
ETs."
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: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
05 Sep 2003 09:23:13 AM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<m3J5b.168524$2x.48078@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0309040717.252604c8@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<wFq5b.261341$Oz4.68592@rwcrnsc54>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0309030907.1b31f98d@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<%M85b.256618$It4.119337@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0309020944.4a91a88e@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<LHc4b.309894$o%2.142209@sccrnsc02>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0308300505.500f1829@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<T_Q3b.299623$o%2.138178@sccrnsc02>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0308291319.96ef8b2@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<KfK3b.226178$It4.108036@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0308290613.5261ef25@posting.google.com...
... You took a real
principle and modified it ...
What do you believe I have modified?
It has been demonstrated that you changed "scientific" to
"logical"
It really is called the logical, scientific method
Fallacy of Equivocation (conflation) from Septic then. The
fact
that
the scientific method is logical for its purpose does entail
that
the
scientific method dictates what is logical.
You think it DOES entail that?
Typo, obviously.
and that you changed "assume" to "must presume"
The quote says "assuming" something false. ...
Here it is again, just to refresh everyone's memory as to what
we
are
discussing.
"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
Yep, it says "assuming that something is false", just as I said.
An assumption/presumption that it is false is the only reasonable
default
assumption/presumption,
The quote doesn't say anything about defaults, let alone anything
about "the only reasonable default".
It's the logical, scientific method of investigation,
The quote doesn't say that either.
It doesn't have to.
Yes it does, because your modification is unsupported.
It goes without saying.
I.e. it has no support. Just as I said.
How do we treat unsupported statements again? "Must presume false."
You modified an actual principle into something that is not a
principle, just as I said and demonstrated.
Septic remains the completely unsupported, self-refuting, mendacious,
fallacious, and discredited old idiot fool liar of alt.atheism.
Demonstrated daily as fact.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 11:17:26 AM |
|
|
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
;news:6f553a4.0309040717.252604c8@posting.google.com...
:> "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
;news:<wFq5b.261341$Oz4.68592@rwcrnsc54>...
:> > "Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
;> > news:6f553a4.0309030907.1b31f98d@posting.google.com...
:> > > "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
;> > news:<%M85b.256618$It4.119337@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
:> > > > "Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
;> > > > news:6f553a4.0309020944.4a91a88e@posting.google.com...
:> > > > > "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
;> > news:<LHc4b.309894$o%2.142209@sccrnsc02>...
:> > > > > > "Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
;> > > > > > news:6f553a4.0308300505.500f1829@posting.google.com...
:> > > > > > > "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
;> > news:<T_Q3b.299623$o%2.138178@sccrnsc02>...
:> > > > > > > > "Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
;> > > > > > > > news:6f553a4.0308291319.96ef8b2@posting.google.com...
:> > > > > > > > > "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
;> > news:<KfK3b.226178$It4.108036@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
:> > > > > > > > > > "Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
;> > > > > > > > > > news:6f553a4.0308290613.5261ef25@posting.google.com...
:> > > > > > > > > >
;> > > > > > > > > >
:> > > > > > > > > > > ... You took a real
;> > > > > > > > > > > principle and modified it ...
:> > > > > > > > > >
;> > > > > > > > > > What do you believe I have modified?
:> > > > > > > > >
;> > > > > > > > > It has been demonstrated that you changed "scientific" to
:> > "logical"
;> > > > > > > >
:> > > > > > > > It really is called the logical, scientific method
;> > > > > > >
:> > > > > > > Fallacy of Equivocation (conflation) from Septic then. The
;fact
:> > that
;> > > > > > > the scientific method is logical for its purpose does entail
:that
;> > the
:> > > > > > > scientific method dictates what is logical.
;> > > > > >
:> > > > > > You think it DOES entail that?
;> > > > >
:> > > > > Typo, obviously.
;> > > > >
:> > > > > > > > > and that you changed "assume" to "must presume"
;> > > > > > >
:> > > > > > > The quote says "assuming" something false. ...
;> > > > > >
:> > > > > > Here it is again, just to refresh everyone's memory as to what
;we
:> > are
;> > > > > > discussing.
:> > > > > >
;> > > > > > "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
;> > > > >
:> > > > > Yep, it says "assuming that something is false", just as I said.
;> > > >
:> > > > An assumption/presumption that it is false is the only reasonable
;> > default
:> > > > assumption/presumption,
;> > >
:> > > The quote doesn't say anything about defaults, let alone anything
;> > > about "the only reasonable default".
:> >
;> > It's the logical, scientific method of investigation,
:>
;> The quote doesn't say that either.
:
;It doesn't have to. It goes without saying. Most everybody but you theist
:knuckleheads knows all about the logical, scientific method of
;investigation.
You got it backward. Scientists assume the opposite of what they
believe to be reasonable just so to prove it wrong, as they know full
well they can't prove theories true, but they can prove the negatives
false. Learn some science.
See?
;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: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 01:04:37 PM |
|
|
In article <m3J5b.168524$2x.48078@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
An assumption/presumption that it is false is the only reasonable
default
assumption/presumption,
The quote doesn't say anything about defaults, let alone anything
about "the only reasonable default".
It's the logical, scientific method of investigation,
The quote doesn't say that either.
It doesn't have to. It goes without saying.
In proper logic, nothing "goes without saying". It is partly Septic
the Capon's "goes without saying" fallacies that gets himself into
such a tangle of illogical positions.
Most everybody but you theist
knuckleheads knows all about the logical, scientific method of
investigation.
It is a shame that Septic the Capon knows so much that ain't so.
That's what hurts him most.
The denial never stands in need of proof, knucklehead.
But every statement is a denial of something, so Septic the Capon is
arguing that no statements ever need proof.
The principle which Septic the Capon is trying to mangle is that
whenever anyone proposes any new hypothesis, of any form, without
accompanying proof, one should also consider the negation of that
hypothesis as provisionally true until proof of the original is
forthcoming. But if someone else proposes that negation, neither it
nor the original can be assumed true until proven. Note that such a
negation or default hypothesis is only accepted provisionally and as
as long as no one else is proposing it.
Given a room full of men and women, someone hypothesizes that the
first to leave will be a man and someone else hypothesizes that the
first to leave will be a women. It is clear that neither can be
presumed true and the other false. Though this is exactly what
Septic the Capon wants to insist on!
It is the true principle, as explained above, which Septic the Capon
is fighting so hard against, since that means that his favorite
hypothesis, "It is a fact (can be demonstrated) that there are no
gods" is as much in need of proof as any theist's or gnostic's.
And Septic the Capon has no such proof!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 01:56:26 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-9A4183.12043704092003@news.newsguy.com...
But every statement is a denial of something ...
False.
See the difference? You made an assertion, I posted the denial, and the
burden of proof cannot be shifted to the denial.
"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: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 04:41:07 PM |
|
|
In article <uVL5b.264471$cF.83150@rwcrnsc53>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-9A4183.12043704092003@news.newsguy.com...
But every statement is a denial of something ...
False.
See the difference? You made an assertion, I posted the denial, and the
burden of proof cannot be shifted to the denial.
But Septic the Capon's denial is false and the original is true,
confounding Septic the Capon's priciples.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 11:08:26 AM |
|
|
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
;> The quote doesn't say anything about defaults, let alone anything
:> about "the only reasonable default".
;
:It's the logical, scientific method of investigation, sir. An
;assumption/presumption that it is false is the only reasonable default
:assumption/presumption. Can't have a default presumption that the theory in
;question is true. That
:would be begging the question.
You got it backward. Scientists assume the opposite of what they
believe to be reasonable just so to prove it wrong, as they know full
well they can't prove theories true, but they can prove the negatives
false. Learn some science.
See?
: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: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 11:43:09 AM |
|
|
"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
news:bj7o1q$4l8@neptune.myri-local.com...
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:It's the logical, scientific method of investigation, sir. An
;assumption/presumption that it is false is the only reasonable default
:assumption/presumption. Can't have a default presumption that the theory
in
;question is true. That
:would be begging the question.
:There are no ET's. (null hypothesis).
You got it backward.
How many ETs are there by your count, sir?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
05 Sep 2003 06:31:47 PM |
|
|
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
;news:bj7o1q$4l8@neptune.myri-local.com...
:> In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
;
:
;> :It's the logical, scientific method of investigation, sir. An
:> ;assumption/presumption that it is false is the only reasonable default
;> :assumption/presumption. Can't have a default presumption that the theory
:in
;> ;question is true. That
:> :would be begging the question.
;
:
;> :There are no ET's. (null hypothesis).
:
;
:
;> You got it backward.
:
;
:How many ETs are there by your count, sir?
I counted a number that does not imply there were none.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 12:11:25 PM |
|
|
In article <xYJ5b.267294$Oz4. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
