Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,565 Year: 4,822/9,624 Month: 170/427 Week: 83/85 Day: 0/20 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 974 of 1725 (604006)
02-09-2011 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 973 by Rahvin
02-09-2011 2:48 PM


Re: possibilities and probabilities
CS, the entirety of your "argument" rests on semantic gymnastics.
You are drawing a disctinction between "observing the entire surface of a desk unblocked by a pen" and "failing to observe a pen when searching a desk." These two statements mean the same thing. You are drawing a distinction without a difference so that you can play word games and maintain your pre-established position that an absence of evidence can never be evidence of absence, even when the evidence is specific and expected, and the area in question is limited and easily searched.
Or I'm right, and you're the one playing semantic games so that you can claim that the absence of evidence can be evidence of absence.
But really, is there any use in speculating one another's motives rather than arguing the positions like we're s'posed to?
I don't really care about the semantic argument, but if someone asked me if there was a pen on the desk, the desk tells me the answer, not the non-evidence of a pen.
You do this because you want to be able to cling to a tired and misused maxim, that an absence of evidence can never be evidence of absence, even though it is childishly easy to demonstrate scenarios where that maxim is false.
Seems you would've went ahead an demonstrated you're correct rather than attacking my character...
How does it feel to have such strong cognitive dissonance?
I don't know. What's it feel like to be such a douche?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 973 by Rahvin, posted 02-09-2011 2:48 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 989 by Rahvin, posted 02-10-2011 11:36 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 990 of 1725 (604161)
02-10-2011 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 989 by Rahvin
02-10-2011 11:36 AM


Re: possibilities and probabilities
...except that I showed very clearly and accurately that your doublespeak is the equivalent of my own claim rearranged such that it appears to support the opposite.
Which doesn't show that yours is the correct one.
If you want to call it "slowing down" and I want to call it "negetive acceleration", then you showing how they're the same doesn't mean that one is better than the other. And to then speculate about my motives and feeling about calling it the way I do is just pathetic.
I am arguing the position. Just because being wrong makes you feel like an idiot or pointing out your cognitive dissonance makes you feel uncomfortable
Speculating on my motives and feelings is not arguing the position. And there's good reasons why its against the rules.
I did. You then tried to claim that I'm just as guilty of semantic gymnastics as you are. The difference is that I fully described and illustrated why your version is just a misleading restatement of my own words, that you've drawn a distinction where there is no difference.
If there's no difference in describing it as an absence of evidence or describing it as evidence of an absence, then neither one of us is wrong.
But whatever, if you'd rather be a jerk than explain yourself then I'll just stop responding to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 989 by Rahvin, posted 02-10-2011 11:36 AM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 994 by Rahvin, posted 02-10-2011 12:33 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 991 of 1725 (604165)
02-10-2011 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 977 by Jon
02-09-2011 6:07 PM


Re: possibilities and probabilities
Isn't this just another way to say: "we have desk" and "we have no evidence of pen"?
Perhaps. But why phrase it so it looks like an absence of evidence other than to make that argument?
By combining it all into a single statement, 'evidence of the desk unblocked by a pen', you're just secretly slipping in an 'absence of evidence' claim.
But it does become evidence of absence. Its not an absence of evidence.
There's more to it than the lack of evidence for a pen. A lack of evidence for a pen doesn't really allow us to conclude that there's no pen. We need to have the whole desk having been searched and showing signs of no pen.
I don't see a good reason to twist it up into an absence of evidence, other than to make the argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 977 by Jon, posted 02-09-2011 6:07 PM Jon has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 993 of 1725 (604173)
02-10-2011 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 987 by Straggler
02-10-2011 10:15 AM


Re: Literacy
Classic converse error...
If he talks about deities, then he talks about subjective evidence.
He is talking about subjective evidence.
Therefore he is talking about deities.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 987 by Straggler, posted 02-10-2011 10:15 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 995 by Straggler, posted 02-10-2011 1:05 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 999 of 1725 (604203)
02-10-2011 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 995 by Straggler
02-10-2011 1:05 PM


Re: Literacy
Actually I think you will find it is the continual references to subjective evidence in threads debating the existence of deities that is the clue here.
Huh? What does that have to do with the value of subjective evidence thread not pertaining to deities?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 995 by Straggler, posted 02-10-2011 1:05 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1001 by Straggler, posted 02-10-2011 2:01 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 1003 of 1725 (604217)
02-10-2011 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 994 by Rahvin
02-10-2011 12:33 PM


Re: possibilities and probabilities
To support this, you say that my own claim that an absence of expected evidence of a pen on a desk is not really what provides evidence that there is no pen on the desk. Rather, you say, it is the positive evidence of the desk unblocked by an image of a pen.
Right. You don't conclude that there's no pen on the desk just simply from not seeing one. You conclude it from seeing that the desk if free of pens.
You are saying this:
"That old adage is actually true. A is not evidence of B. Instead, A is evidence of B."
Do you see yet?
No, I don't see that. I see: "A is not evidence of B. Instead, C is evidence of B."
You're saying there's no differece between A and C. A is 'not seeing a pen on the desk' and C is 'seeing a penless desk'. A is non-evidence, C is evidence.
You are drawing a distinction without a difference, and claiming that the distinction shows that an absence of evidence really isn;t evidence of absence, and that I am wrong.
If all you were doing was restating my position in a different way, we would not be having an argument.
Are they different or not?
You;re using a semantic difference, framing an absence of evidence as actually somehow positive evidence (an absurdity in its own right)
You are the one saying non-evidence is evidence, not me.
I demonstrated a scenario that falsifies the adage.
As I origianlly said, I think there's more to it than your scenario provides.
And you haven't really addressed that. You'd rather assume your right and I'm crazy, and argue about my motivations.
Troll on, troll.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 994 by Rahvin, posted 02-10-2011 12:33 PM Rahvin has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 1004 of 1725 (604219)
02-10-2011 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1001 by Straggler
02-10-2011 2:01 PM


Re: Literacy
Not necessarily.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1001 by Straggler, posted 02-10-2011 2:01 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1006 by Straggler, posted 02-10-2011 2:26 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 1023 of 1725 (604340)
02-11-2011 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1022 by Rahvin
02-11-2011 12:02 PM


Um, I realize there's no smiley, but he shopped the picture so the guy is blowing the calf....
Another confirmation of Poe's Law!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1022 by Rahvin, posted 02-11-2011 12:02 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1024 by Rahvin, posted 02-11-2011 12:14 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 1025 by Straggler, posted 02-11-2011 12:16 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 1058 of 1725 (607505)
03-04-2011 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1056 by purpledawn
03-04-2011 6:03 AM


Re: Does Bluegenes Have A Theory?
What did Bluegenes measure and where is his data? What, exactly, would he publish?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1056 by purpledawn, posted 03-04-2011 6:03 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1060 by Straggler, posted 03-04-2011 10:07 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 1085 by purpledawn, posted 03-04-2011 2:46 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 1059 of 1725 (607507)
03-04-2011 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1057 by Straggler
03-04-2011 6:33 AM


Re: Great Debate RAZD and Subbie - Ignosticism
You have to read upthread from that to get to the source of this where Catholic Scientist hilariously declares his undying agnosticism towards the existence of cheese (this continues to make me chuckle to this day).
How is it undying if the moment you revealed what the concept was I immediately dropped the agnosticism?
And I still don't see how I could possibly know if something exists or not without knowing what it is we're considering...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1057 by Straggler, posted 03-04-2011 6:33 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1062 by Straggler, posted 03-04-2011 10:24 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 1061 of 1725 (607510)
03-04-2011 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1060 by Straggler
03-04-2011 10:07 AM


Re: Does Bluegenes Have A Theory?
Are the concepts the beings? Aren't all concepts from human imagination? How else do you get a concept?
How about this super awesome theory:
All scientific concepts are figments of the human imagination.
Agree?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1060 by Straggler, posted 03-04-2011 10:07 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1063 by Straggler, posted 03-04-2011 10:25 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 1064 by Straggler, posted 03-04-2011 10:33 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 1065 of 1725 (607516)
03-04-2011 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1064 by Straggler
03-04-2011 10:33 AM


Re: Does Bluegenes Have A Theory?
Sure, whatever. I was busy the last week or so and not reading much here. I got some shit to do, and I suppose I could catch up a bit, so I'll get back to you in that thread later this afternoon, Concept-Y willing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1064 by Straggler, posted 03-04-2011 10:33 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1066 by Straggler, posted 03-04-2011 11:35 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 1067 of 1725 (607523)
03-04-2011 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1066 by Straggler
03-04-2011 11:35 AM


Re: Does Bluegenes Have A Theory?
Okay, so the original theory, that the beings themselves have been shown to be imagined has been abandoned.
The concepts of those beings, like any concept, must come from the human imagination.
So you agree that all scientific concepts are figments of the human imaginations, right?
That a tree can be demonstrated and a god cannot, and the problems that arrise from that, doesn't really have anything to do with the concepts of those things necesssarily being imagined, does it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1066 by Straggler, posted 03-04-2011 11:35 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1068 by Straggler, posted 03-04-2011 11:54 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 1071 by xongsmith, posted 03-04-2011 12:46 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 1074 of 1725 (607543)
03-04-2011 1:45 PM


In Message 31, Subbie writes:
Curiously, I have no need to prove or disprove your claim: you made it not me.
Amusingly, it turns out that you aren't actually making any claim at all about gods, so there's really nothing to prove or disprove.
I thought that was RAZD's point, to not make a claim about gods, and that Subbie agreed that he would support the position that they don't exist

Replies to this message:
 Message 1075 by Straggler, posted 03-04-2011 2:03 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 1079 by bluegenes, posted 03-04-2011 2:12 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 1081 of 1725 (607555)
03-04-2011 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1075 by Straggler
03-04-2011 2:03 PM


CS writes:
I thought that was RAZD's point, to not make a claim about gods, and that Subbie agreed that he would support the position that they don't exist.
Support the position that what doesn't exist?
Whatever he had in mind when he claimed that he could support that it doesn't exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1075 by Straggler, posted 03-04-2011 2:03 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1082 by Straggler, posted 03-04-2011 2:23 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024