On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 18:48:39 GMT, "Tichy" <bbanzaiHB88@hotmail.com>
wrote:
I should have read this through earlier.
It's funny stuff.
Thank you!
I was in a good mood getting ready for a vacation.
I'm back now.
"MrD, Pstychologist" <pstychologist@mythbytes.com> wrote in message
news:ncaohvg4tliar2b2pvr9eqsbbimj4k6s4i@4ax.com...
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 19:22:50 GMT, "Tichy" <bbanzaiHB88@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"MrD, Pstychologist" <pstychologist@mythbytes.com> wrote in message
news:gnfihvggvbfsdkrdtc0h6v5hia94ii5svr@4ax.com...
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 08:20:46 GMT, "Tichy" <bbanzaiHB88@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"MrD, Pstychologist" <pstychologist@mythbytes.com> wrote in message
news:uefhhvgfubevkqliod2lpms06frgktngg1@4ax.com...
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 17:05:07 GMT, "Tichy" <bbanzaiHB88@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"MrD, Pstychologist" <pstychologist@mythbytes.com> wrote in message
news:dfubhv0o8t03kfju13eptl5sdm34ug8ooo@4ax.com...
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 22:23:24 GMT, "Tichy"
<bbanzaiHB88@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"MrD, Pstychologist" <pstychologist@mythbytes.com> wrote in
message
<snip>
I was asking for opinion, so I'm happy you've responded.
the affirmative claim here is benevolence, not against
benevolence.
The implicit claim is that the death of babies is incompatible
with
benevolence.
Okay, I can understand that well enough but isn't 'incompatible'
a
negative claim?
You've got a distorted view of what consitutes "positive" and
"negative"
claims.
That could well be.
The person who advances the original proposition is the positive
claimant,
and the opposition is the negative claimant, whatever the content
of
the
individual claims.
Hmmm.
I take it the following is your proof of your positive claim?
"In argument for God's existence, but burden of proof is on the
believer.In
argument against God's existence, burden of proof is on atheist."
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~elias/Courses/Intro/slides/logic-religion.
p
d
f
"Burden of proof usually is put on a claim that is initially
implausable,
but people sometimes want to shift the burden of proof in order to
evade
their own burden of proof."
http://www.ulm.edu/~hwilson/phil203.HAND5.htm
Hmmmm. This statement could contradict your statement above that
the
original proposition is the positive claimant and has the burden of
proof.
That might be so, if I had claimed that the original proposition bears
the
burden of proof.
Well, you did claim : "The person who advances the original
proposition is the positive claimant, and the opposition is the
negative claimant, whatever the content of the individual claims."
I mistook that as meaning the positive claimant has BoP.
At least now you are implying that I mistook it.
Let's just say that I was aware that BoP may be reassigned in case of
highly doubtful claims prior to the initiation of our discussion.
That being said, the convention of leaving the BoP on person asserting
something is far and away the most practical approach in a public forum.
Oh, this just won't do.
Why not?
I thought it was clear by the following line.
Are you unable to figure it out?
Are you stating that there is more than one
way to determine BoP and you just decide arbitrarily based on what you
consider 'doubtful' claims?
No.
'No' to which part?
This severely undermines your BoP authority.
How?
If you answer yes to either part of the above.
If the original proposition isn't implausible and the argument
against it is, wouldn't the BoP be on the second?
Quite possibly, but argument from personal incredulity doesn't
constitute
implausibility. You can imagine how such a reply could cause
discussion
to
degenerate into bickering over BoP. In a public forum, it's simpler
to
just
assign BoP to the original claimant, since the original claimant is
the
one
who has stock in whether or not he is to be believed.
So you are claiming that the original proposition is the positive
claimant and has the BoP.
No, I realize there may be exceptions. However, I strongly advocate
placing
BoP on the person asserting something in the context of public forums.
It's an excellent rule-of-thumb iow, and it is well-supported in terms of
debate history.
You 'strongly advocate', but it's only a 'rule-of-thumb'!
Yes, I strongly advocate it, and I stated that it's an excellent
rule-of-thumb, no "only" a rule of thumb.
Different venues handle BoP differently. Formal debate assigns primary
responisibility to the first position being advocated, and gives the
respondent position a lighter BoP, though the respondent still has BoP for
any of its contrary claims. It isn't enough to merely naysay regarding the
point at issue, iow.
Yet, apparently, there are no actual authoritative rules, at least
none that you've offered.
Therefore your 'say so' isn't authoritative, is it?
Is it that you don't actually know if there is an actual process for
clearly defining who holds the BoP?
No, it's that the process varies with the venue. In the US criminal court
system, the prosecution bears the BoP mol exclusively, for example.
I don't believe we were discussing criminal court systems. We were
discussing BoP with regards to Usenet discussions.
This is incredible. You've been basing all these arguments of yours
on what is basically just your own opinion, haven't you?!
No. You'll recall that I presented URL's from .edu sites in support of what
I was saying, iirc.
No, I recall you presented URL's from .edu sites that didn't support
what you were saying. They supported the idea that the burden of
proof can be assigned by different means. One site, IIRC, even went
so far as to state that anyone who assumes the BoP in a philosophical
discussion will ultimately lose his point in the discussion.
That site explained quite a bit about your behavior that I have
witnessed.
I think you've shot yourself in the foot. I have no reason to believe
you have any authority in BoP issues from now on.
"It's well-supported in terms of debate history."
Oh, my, how can I argue with that?!
LOL
Okay, and since you've conveniently forgotten my authoritative citations,
I'll continue to conclude that consistent application of logical reasoning
is a goal that you have yet to attain.
Your conflicting authoritative citations? LOL.
Did you even read them yourself?
One said to put the burden of proof on the more implausible claim.
One said to put the burden of proof on the original claimant.
One said to avoid ever taking the burden of proof upon yourself, else
you will fail.
Forgive me for paraphrasing, I haven't read the sites again since
before my vacation.
Principle in action:
http://www.unc.edu/~ujanel/FreeBurden.htm
I notice that atheists are publishing their version of the burden
of
proof
to the Web quite voluminously.
Burden-of-proof evaders, the lot of them.
Aha! I'm learning enough to understand that you have the BoP for
that
statement!
Yes, I would bear the BoP for that statement to whatever extent I wish
you
(or other readers) to take it seriously. While I am correct in my
stated
view, I don't consider it important to this discussion and my interest
in
whether or not you believe it is severely tempered by the effort that
it
would take to accept the claim.
I was just happy to agree that you had the BoP.
Yes, okay.
As I said, the BoP falls primarily on the person who wants somebody else
to
adopt his view.
This from the 'Great Authority'. ..."BoP falls primarily on the
person who wants somebody else to adopt his view." Unless, of course,
Tichy doesn't like where BoP falls, then it could fall elsewhere.
How is that determined, Tichy?
In MrD's strawman world, maybe.
I asked you how it was determined and you say in my strawman world?
I assume this means that you cannot justify your application of BoP?
You made the claim 'the BoP falls primarily on the person who wants
somebody else to adopt his view.'
I asked how that was determined.
You dodged the question.
Perhaps you'll state you already answered it.
<snip>
What about this sort of claim:
I have found no reason to believe that there are 4 moons orbiting
Mars?
Is there a burden of proof attached to that claim?
Only to the extent that you want others to accept the claim. Claims
of
opinion (and your claim above seems to fall into that realm) typically
are
not challenged. There's not much point in challenging opinions unless
it
is
suggested that others share the opinion.
Here I thought you'd say it was a response to the claim that there are
4 moon s orbiting Mars.
It's probably always possible to imagine a claim that any other claim is
a
response to, which makes the whole practice of designating claims as a
response to somebody else's claim a childish exercise.
If somebody cannot support his claim, then don't bother taking it
seriously
unless you feel like it. "Positive", "negative"--it doesn't matter.
Great. No reason to take any theist seriously then.
I don't think that you can support that claim.
You weren't interested in having it taken seriously, though, were you?
If the statement you made, "If somebody cannot support his claim, then
don't bother taking it seriously unless you feel like it," is true,
then I seriously see no reason to take any theist seriously (about
theistic beliefs). I've yet to see any theist able to support their
claims with anything approaching proof.
I'm glad you've stated it that way. I feel closer to you now.
Nice to be on the same side of the issue.
<snip>
If it can't be proved, then don't make the claim.
:-)
Exactly my thoughts with regards to God beliefs.
No doubt that's how you view it, but since the same may be said for
arguments *against* various conceptions of God, we're left with inference
to
the best explanation. That's where the issue becomes highly
controversial,
with very few deductively established landmarks.
Well, the God concept is the implausible argument, so it bears the
burden of proof
Why is the God-concept the implausible argument? Why are you free from your
BoP for that claim? Do most people think that the "God-concept" is
implausible?
Most people? Is that your argument?
Clearly in a natural environment such as we live in, the supernatural
is more implausible than the natural claim. Claimants of the
supernatural bear the BoP based on these 'rules of thumb':
1: BoP falls primarily on the person who wants somebody else to adopt
his view. (creationists clearly are evangelical)
2: BoP falls on the original claimant (one cannot suppose 'not god'
without 'god' concept to begin with)
3: BoP falls on the implausible claim (supernatural over natural)
. All other arguments are response arguments to the
unproven assertion that there is a 'God'.
. . . which has nothing to do with any alleged implausibility.
Many (maybe all) arguments are conducted over premisses which cannot
themselves be proven. An argument, for instance, that rational thought is
impossible without God isn't based on any unproven assertion that there is a
God. It is based on premisses taken as true for the sake of argument.
Therefore one should go with what evidence we have at hand to
determine implausibility. The natural fits the evidence, the
supernatural has no evidence. Implausibility seems obvious to me, it
is on the side with no evidence.
It also must be the original assertion, as who would bring up the
assertion, "There is no force running the universe"?
Something runs the universe. The question is whether it is personal or
impersonal. Only the agnostic position ("I don't know") bears no BoP.
Something runs the universe? I challenge that statement.
Only someone responding to a nut-job who says otherwise.
Yeah? Prove it.
:-)
You just said otherwise, nut-job.
;-)
The argument from design is a pretty decent inductive proof for the
existence of god, for example. You can massage your sense of
justification
by noting that the argument probably falls short in its deductive
formulations, but it stands as a reasonable inference to the best
explanation.
It holds the BoP. I won't be taking that seriously until they've
proven it. Wow, you are right, this BoP thing is important!
lol
Afaics, you just betrayed an unfamiliarity with the terms of logic.
You're so quaint when you ridicule things that you don't understand.
What is it that you think I didn't understand?
You state that it stands as a reasonable inference to the 'best'
explanation. Anyone who claims it is the best explanation holds the
BoP that it is such, and until they prove it, I'll not take it
seriously, by your own advice.
<snip>
"It is impossible for man to fly in so-called "airplanes".
That's just a response to bozos like Wilbur and Orville, right?
It's a response that is only disproven by proof from bozos like the
Wilbur and Orville. The original claimant will never proof his
claim.
Shouldn't he be expected to?
He should be expected to prove a negative?
Yes. I've shown that negatives are not beyond proof. If it can be done,
then it should be done. If it cannot be done, then you should not feel
compelled to accept the claim.
Well, that and the negative claim doesn't bear the BoP if it was in
response to an implausible claim to begin with.
Find a citation supporting your claim which isn't specifically handling the
issue of theism/atheism from an atheistic perspective.
That "rule" seems to be a caculated move on the part of atheists to escape
from the BoP.
Why do I need another citation? This follows fully from the citations
you put up in support of your use of BoP issues.
The negative claim is in response to the original (positive) claim,
the one you apparently want me to believe, the implausible one.
There's three reasons why it bears BoP.
What reasons do you have, from your original citations of 'authority',
that it doesn't bear it?
I guess what you are
stating is that he should retract his statement as unprovable since he
has the BoP and it's not possible to prove.
Whether or not it is possible to prove it rests on the evidence he
presents
in favor of the claim, or on the evidence that you bring to bear for the
opposite claim.
How can the BoP be placed where it is impossible to come to
fruition?
Is it impossible? Can you prove that?
Pretty much follows what I said above.
And this pretty much follows what I said above, too.
"Matter is all that exists."
That's just a response to the claim that something more than mere
matter
exists, right?
Or it is a premise to an argument.
A false one, but it doesn't have to be a response.
You realize that I'm making a point, right?
;-)
Of course. I may be without brains and stupid, but I'm not average.
;-)
"My thoughts are made of matter."
That's just a response to the claim that thoughts are made of
something
other than matter, right?
It could just be a claim or a premise.
But you realize that I'm making a point related to BoP issues, right?
Well, I understand what you are saying, but I think you aren't
correct.
This could well be the original claim, not a counter claim.
Just as the claim 'there is a god' is not a response to 'there is no
god'. The original claim has to be the one introducing the concept.
All X are black.
Some X are not black.
Which is the original claim?
The method you propose leads to endless bickering over BoP. Naturally,
the
atheist/agnostic community has found leaving the BoP with the theist to
be a
very convenient way to absolve themselves of the BoP, so you'll find
plenty
of text published to the effect that atheists bear no BoP.
Why don't we just determine who made the original claim?
Because my time machine isn't perfected yet?
I was thinking more in line with a thought experiment, not a physical
'time-space' experiment. Perhaps wormhole technology will allow us to
determine it physically someday. Is that the time machine you are
perfecting, or do you power yours with prayer?
Some claims are pretty easy to determine. 'Cats exist' would be the
original claim over 'cats don't exist', for how else would the concept
of 'cat' come into being?
Did somebody claim that Hobbits exist before it was claimed that Hobbits
don't exist?
Someone came up with the concept of 'Hobbit' before it was claimed it
didn't exist, yes.
It's quite possible to hypothesize entities in some detail without positing
their existence.
This serves as a counterexample to your claim, of course.
No, it doesn't. The hypothesizing is the original conceptual claim,
whether it is held true or false.
Maybe you don't know what a counterexample is, otoh.
Not if you believe this is one.
Even if I stated 'burglabarn' doesn't exist, I originally had to
conceptualize 'burglabarn' within my mind to respond that it doesn't
exist.
Did conceptualizing "burglabarn" cause "burglabarn" to exist?
Conceptually, yes. You are really reaching at straws now.
Do you even read what you write?
'does creating something cause something to be created?'
It exists in concept and that is what is responded to when someone
replies that it doesn't exist.
If you'll go back in the archives, Dr. Sinister and others have
demonstrated
that atheism is an incoherent positive claim in its popular contemporary
definition.
Why would I want to look up something Dr Sinister demonstrated?
You wouldn't, imo.
So why do you keep bringing him up?
Do you think he's sexy?
Do you want to date him?
To me, Atheist is a label I use to describe how I feel about god
beliefs. I don't have any belief that a god exists. I don't know that
a god doesn't exist, I just don't have any belief that one does.
BoP? Mine. But I don't really care if you believe that I hold a
particular belief about gods existing.
If you say Atheism is something other than that, I suggest you
demonstrate it yourself.
No need, since Dr. Sinister has already accomplished it. If you're curious
as to how it was done, then you'll want to look up what he wrote in the
archives.
That pretty much brings us full circle, eh?
Well, now we are at "Someone else already answered that".
Originally your statement was "I already answered that" or something
similar.
To complete your circle, you have to prove you are someone else, I
guess.
:-)
Without the original thought about a god, there can be no refusal of
the concept.
Without a definition of "god" that covers all possibilities for gods, the
atheist cannot know that he lacks belief in all gods.
It's implausible that I wouldn't know my own beliefs, therefore you
hold the burden of proof for that statement.
Right. I've cited Dr. Sinister in support of my statement. If you're not
interested in seeing how the BoP is borne, that's fine.
You've cited Dr Sinister as authoritative on my beliefs?
You now want me to believe you are authoritative on BoP? LOL
What a laugh riot you are, Tichy.
If you think this Dr Sinister argument needs to be viewed, then give
me the link, I'm not going to go reading everything he's written,
especially since you agree that I shouldn't take what he says as
something I'd want to look up.
Do you surprise yourself when you look in the mirror by who's there
this time?
Or, I could point out that claiming that you lack belief in a god or gods is
different from giving the mere opinion that you do not belief in a god or
gods. You could say "As far as I know, I don't believe in a god or gods"
and that would be okay.
Thank you for your permission.
Why do I need the qualifier of "as far as I know"?
I don't believe in a god or gods. ' As far as I know' is implicit, no?
It's not like I'm going to state " I don't believe in a god or gods,
but I really don't know if I believe in them or not".
One part of the statement nulls the other part.
Also, a concept of God may be agreed upon. After that, each person may
make
a separate claim about whether or not that being exists.
Staying on the "unbelief" track is a bit like lacking belief in a perfect
circle, unless it's just hiding out in the forest of opinion.
Your argument is meaningless until you prove it.
Nonsense. Dr. Sinister has argued it admirably.
"someone else already answered that"
You are trying to define a thought or belief into a universal
absolute. If I say I don't believe in Gods, but you decide you'll
define a god as a dog, then go on to say I am wrong because I said I
don't believe in gods, but I do believe in dogs, you are not
addressing my beliefs, but your own. I don't believe in gods,
whether you call your puppy 'jesus' or not.
That brings us to the issue of what you mean when you claim to lack belief
in gods. If you don't mean "dogs" when you say "gods" then what is it you
mean?
I don't lack belief in god concepts, I lack belief that those concepts
are reality.
This is apparently the best that theists can come up with, redefining
god as undefinable. That which cannot be conceptualized as god
doesn't need to be argued against.
You stated that something runs the universe. That is a god concept.
I mean, when I say that I don't believe in 'gods' that there is
nothing 'running' the universe. The universe 'runs', just as an
automobile engine may be said to run. To say that something runs the
car is to say more than 'the car runs', it is to say that something
beyond the car is running it.
This is the trail that leads to the incoherence of "atheist" btw.
You can go on believing without proof that the concept is coherent, or you
can look up what Dr. Sinister wrote in order to discover that the term is
incoherent after all.
Fair enough?
:-)
I'd be happy to read it, just post the URL.
To me, the statement 'my thoughts are made of something other than
matter' is a response to 'my thoughts are made of matter' because of
the use of the idea of 'matter'.
To person Z, the situation is reversed. Now bicker over who's got the
BoP.
Don't need to bicker. It depends on what Z states.
Z says it depends on what you state.
You sure got out of that one efficiently. ;-)
Z is an idiot.
;-)
If I say 'my jelly bean is made of corn syrup', Is that just a
response to the claim that jelly beans are made of jelly?
Could be. Who's got the burden of proof?
If it is just a response, then what was 'my jelly beans are made of
jelly' a response to?
Exactly! You could just make something up and disclaim the BoP, and
you
can
see essentially that technique practiced with some regularity in
alt.atheism
(by alt.atheist and visiting theist alike).
Yes, I've seen it recently.
<snip>
If you want to convince somebody of something, no matter whether it's
"positive" or "negative", take up your own BoP.
That sounds like good advice.
I take it your continuing insistence on denying BoP for yourself
implies that you don't want to convince anyone of anything?
No.
Can you prove that I have a continuing insistence on denying BoP for myself?
Sure, just stay tuned. You will continue to insist you don't bear the
BoP.
I could be wrong, but I'm confident.
So why bother addressing the issue?
For your edification.
Might be futile but oh, well.
Thank you for thinking of me.
I do need to keep improving myself.
<snip>
To hide behind BoP issues when you have the power to prove something
definitively strikes me as selfish or cowardly.
If you think that, it's fine, but if you try to force the BoP on somebody
who doesn't feel like convincing your of something by calling him
"selfish"
or "cowardly" then you're either being selfish (in the former case) or
silly
(in the latter case).
LOL. I would probably call it manipulative, rather than silly.
You've advised that the BoP falls on someone who wants to make someone
else accept their claims. If I want to prove something, then I have
the BoP. If I don't care that it's proven, I don't need accept BoP.
Use of manipulation in order to make someone else desire to prove
something is an acceptable method of shifting BoP to the party that
can actually prove it by evidential means. It could well be the only
means available to the party wishing to prove something but who
doesn't have access to the evidence. I don't see how you could
consider that silly.
It's probably the fact that the technique is routinely pioneered by
second-graders.
So it is automatically silly?
Second graders routinely 'pioneer' the technique of telling time, does
that fact make telling time silly?
It's simpler not to take the claim seriously unless the original
claimant
takes up the BoP.
There's no good reason to let the claim stand as true without evidence
in
favor.
Yes, I understood that, but if I wanted to disprove it, it would only
be done by my taking the BoP.
Yes, and that's the principle of accepting the BoP for any proposition
that
you wish to be accepted by another.
You can see that I could disprove your claim as it is written,
right?
You're referring to my absurd argument-by-example, right?
Answer=yes.
You can see that you cannot prove your claim as written, right?
No.
Oh, okay, then prove it.
Prove that I cannot prove it.
:-)
YOu cannot prove that I have no brains without physical inspection of
me.
Prove it.
This is going well for my ' you will continue to insist you don't bear
the BoP' claim.
You can infer that I have brains and disprove your claim, but you
cannot prove it.
Prove it.
If I can "disprove" my claim through an inference that you have brains, then
why can't I prove my claim via the inference that you have no brains?
Perhaps I made a mistake when I said you could infer that I have
brains and disprove your claim. I don't think you can disprove or
prove your claim by inference. You need evidence.
You've accepted the BoP, go ahead.
Is that you, MrD, or are the attribution arrows mixed up? Where did I
accept a BoP?
You stated by replying 'no' that you cannot see that you cannot prove
your claim as written. That's an implausible claim and bears the
burden of proof.
Not at all. You asked my opinion, and I gave it. I don't see that I cannot
prove it, in principle. Yours is the implausible claim, and you're busy
trying to shift your burden of proof.
What implausible claim would that be?
It's been over a week and I'm not sure what you are referring to now.
It's evident that you cannot prove it without the
evidence that I control, making your claim of 'no' implausible.
How is it so evident? Your explanation above appears contradictory
(inference can falsify the claim but cannot confirm the claim).
I agree. I was in error.
You need the evidence to prove it either way.
If it is to be resolved, the proof is only with the positive
evidence
of whether I have brains or not.
Stupid or not, I can resolve the issue, and you cannot.
The BoP, if it is to be proven, has to come from me.
That's highly debatable, but I don't find that debate interesting when
we've
already got other discussions underway.
I'm willing to wait on the other discussions.
If this is highly debatable, then it's worth discussing now.
Okay, go ahead.
I'm not the one whom stated it was highly debatable, you did.
You stated that the proof had to come from you. I was just responding to
your claim, and I'm simultaneously in the process of proving that your claim
is highly debatable since I'm debating it.
That doesn't make it 'highly' debatable. I hold all the evidence and
evidence is required to prove the assertion. I don't see that would
be 'highly' debatable at all.
You made the assertion, you have the positive claim. I have nothing
to respond to. I'm not sure what you consider highly debatable.
You must take up your BoP or retract the 'highly debatable' comment.
Well, naturally if you withdraw your claim it is considerably less
debatable.
:-)
I do not, however, withdraw my claim until you withdraw yours.
Define 'highly debatable'. All I see so far is just nominally
debatable. :-)
<snip>
That would be via a finding of emptyheadedness (or other suitable
means
of
discerning brainlessness). Still not what you wrote, afaics. Typo,
maybe?
I'm not sure what you are referring to, I'm probably just overlooking
it as I did when I originally wrote it. Would you prefer ...'but you
cannot prove it until I provide evidence of no brains'>?
Yes, albeit you'd still be wrong with respect to the BoP involved.
By whose authority?! Yours!?! LOL.
You read the links?
Yes, did you?
This makes your
negative claim unanswerable without my affirmative evidence.
Clearly the only proof, and therefore the burden, lies with me.
You're so desperate to protect your nonsensical notion of BoP that
you
give
yourself the BoP for countering the claim that you're stupid?
Well, everyone needs a hobby. Don't you agree that any proof of the
claim has to come from my positive evidence?
No, I don't.
I'm not surprised, but I would like some explanation.
How would you prove something definitively without positive evidence
either in presence or absence?
More to the point, why would you be responsible (nay, the only one able!)
for demonstrating the presence or absence with respect to somebody else's
claim?
I understand that I am not burdened to take the responsibility, but
your statement doesn't answer my question at all.
Your question was answered when I gave you an example of how to prove a
negative.
I didn't accept that proof, IIRC. The question wasn't answered, but
dodged by an inaccurate proof, IMO.
Perhaps you should try again.
In other words, to prove I have no brains, you need my head to either
be with brains or without. How would you prove it without my head?
Even if we had your cranium, you could claim that your brains are in your
spleen, or in your gall bladder--whatever. The argument should proceed on
the basis of a lack of cognitive brain function, which may be done
without
your presence, consent, and most importantly without you having the
burden
of proof.
You have the BoP to prove that 'no brains' = lack of cognitive brain
function.
No, I don't. When I formulate the argument, I can *define* "no brains" as
"lack of cognitive brain function".
So you admit your proof was incomplete by 'reformulating' the
argument. That wasn't part of your proof.
Your definition might be rejected.
You have the BoP to show that it should be included.
You have the BoP to prove that evidence for lack of cognitive brain
function may be done without my presence and consent.
If by "presence" you mean that you must have some existence, then I agree.
In principle, I could send microscopic probes (like in Fantastic Voyage) to
inspect your cranium. These probes could infiltrate your system without
your knowledge or consent and while you must be "present" for them, you need
not be "present" to me.
What?! You aren't serious, are you?
Notice your use of 'your' system, 'your' cranium, 'you must be
"present"'.
How is that having me not be "present" to you?
You aren't going to go about redefining words to suit your personal
needs, are you?
You can do it without my consent, but you need my presence in some
manner.
I agree that I wouldn't have the burden of proof. I am stating that
it would only be resolved by my accepting the BoP by presenting the
evidence for 'no brains'.
You would be wrong in your statement, for the sending of microscopic probes
for data collection would mean that I was bearing the BoP.
About time too.
But you miss my meaning, purposely or not. Without my evidence, you
cannot prove it, whether you assume the BoP or not.
That is what I meant by stating that I would have to accept the BoP by
providing the physical evidence in one way or another. The actual
'proof' is done by the evidence, you just had the burden to pursue the
evidence based on your statement about 'no brains'. The problem with
your negative proof is that you'd have to have complete knowledge of
'no brains', ieee, you'd have to prove that your probes didn't just
miss the bit of brain that is within when they came back 'without
brains'.
On a scale of a human body, I suppose it is possible to examine every
bit of physical evidence and conclude 'no brains', but in many
arguments, the negative is simply impossible to prove.
Even if I were to assume that you could prove one negative, that
doesn't give you leave to assume anyone can prove any negative.
The latter is the whole point, imo. Just because we want to sift your
body
for aggregations of neurons doesn't mean that you personally are bearing
the
BoP.
You're bearing the consequences of our bearing the BoP, in that instance.
But if you are able to sift through my body, it would be only by
having the evidence provided by me, or in that case, my body.
I have taken the burden of proof by becoming the proof.
That's equivocal, don't you think?
Perhaps we are overburdening the point. I think we can see each
other's points.
Whether it's equivocal, I am unsure.
You are simply wasting our time by not acknowledging this simple fact.
You're wasting our time by appealing to that simple fact, imo.
It doesn't waste my time because it goes to my argument.
Therefore your statement of opinion is incorrect.
Since in this case, the evidence is of a personal nature, I think what
you call an equivocation is actually important.
It doesn't apply to many other arguments, however. Most of those
involve impersonal evidence or lack thereof.
I don't think the thought exercise is a waste of time, but your
inability to acknowledge the fact is a waste of time.
------
MrD Pstychologist aa#1119
.
