Rei
Concering your statement:
Just out of curiousity... when a person argues using one of the most fundamental of all known logical fallicies, is it best to simply not respond, or to try and reason with the aforementioned "brick wall"?
as it relates to the other statement by DNAunion
ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE
I just wanted to make sure that the proper phrase is made available so I pulled this from a webpage covering Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit
appeal to ignorance -- the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist -- and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
[This message has been edited by sidelined, 11-05-2003]
[This message has been edited by sidelined, 11-05-2003]