Evidence Of Absence.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-08-2015, 08:36 AM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 08:31 AM)Free Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 08:28 AM)Chas Wrote:  Because he read the first two lines, maybe?

Maybe, but still, he read "something" of the post.

Besides, I'm only poking fun in jest.

Oddly it's in a way a fitting point to demonstrate how too long; didn't read is of a terminology use and positional claim like that in debate. It's not a directly loose nor a declared statement of the exact spots.

It's not saying didn't read anything or didn't read at all nor saying I read a bit and stopped or anything specifically exactly. Didn't read doesn't mean all of it entirely wasn't read though ti could be assumed to be interpreted that way. I think in many of these cases it's best ot not follow with presumptions and assumptions of conclusiveness of any idea/statement. Take the stances of I don't know or I believe where they are instead of following them to some presumed conclusion.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
24-08-2015, 08:37 AM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 08:34 AM)Free Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 08:31 AM)Chas Wrote:  Observing that the non-existence of X has not been proven is not the same as claiming X is possible.

That's fallacious.

How does one observe a non existence? How does one prove that a non existence is in fact non existent?

That's not what I wrote. It is the proof of non-existence that has not been observed.

Quote:This is fallacious and you know it.

What I wrote is not fallacious.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2015, 08:42 AM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 08:34 AM)Free Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 08:31 AM)Chas Wrote:  Observing that the non-existence of X has not been proven is not the same as claiming X is possible.

That's fallacious.

How does one observe a non existence? How does one prove that a non existence is in fact non existent?

This is fallacious and you know it.

I think he is in a way agreeing with you.

Observation = non existence (no burden of proof met)

This is not the equivalent of (whatever it is that has not been observed to exist) being possible to exist. Possibility is assigned through positive evidence. No positive evidence, no calculable possibility.



Others are using examples like humans maybe traveling to Alpha Centauri or some other claim about what may be possible in the future. I don't think it is wise or fair to try and assign future possibilities based off of the hope that we will eventually develop the technology to do these things. As was pointed out by a colleague of mine to me a few years ago, this amounts to having faith in science to learn or do something we have no evidence is possible (realistically or idealistically) to do.

So, is it possible that humans can travel to Alpha Centauri? It is plausible given the fact that humans have developed spacecraft, but we don't have any evidence at the moment that we can realistically build the machines or develop the technology necessary to actually do it. So it isn't possible at this point in human history is all we can say. We can't conclude anything about future possibilities (this seems akin to theists claiming that "one day you'll know")

We can try and model some things based on current understandings and evidence (which is how we model climate change, but that's entirely different).

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
24-08-2015, 08:46 AM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 08:42 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 08:34 AM)Free Wrote:  That's fallacious.

How does one observe a non existence? How does one prove that a non existence is in fact non existent?

This is fallacious and you know it.

I think he is in a way agreeing with you.

Observation = non existence (no burden of proof met)

This is not the equivalent of (whatever it is that has not been observed to exist) being possible to exist. Possibility is assigned through positive evidence. No positive evidence, no calculable possibility.



Others are using examples like humans maybe traveling to Alpha Centauri or some other claim about what may be possible in the future. I don't think it is wise or fair to try and assign future possibilities based off of the hope that we will eventually develop the technology to do these things. As was pointed out by a colleague of mine to me a few years ago, this amounts to having faith in science to learn or do something we have no evidence is possible (realistically or idealistically) to do.

So, is it possible that humans can travel to Alpha Centauri? It is plausible given the fact that humans have developed spacecraft, but we don't have any evidence at the moment that we can realistically build the machines or develop the technology necessary to actually do it. So it isn't possible at this point in human history is all we can say. We can't conclude anything about future possibilities (this seems akin to theists claiming that "one day you'll know")

We can try and model some things based on current understandings and evidence (which is how we model climate change, but that's entirely different).

It appears my use of the word 'observing' is throwing you off.

Let me re-phrase it:
Claiming that the non-existence of X has not been proven is not the same as claiming X is possible.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2015, 08:51 AM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 08:46 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 08:42 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I think he is in a way agreeing with you.

Observation = non existence (no burden of proof met)

This is not the equivalent of (whatever it is that has not been observed to exist) being possible to exist. Possibility is assigned through positive evidence. No positive evidence, no calculable possibility.



Others are using examples like humans maybe traveling to Alpha Centauri or some other claim about what may be possible in the future. I don't think it is wise or fair to try and assign future possibilities based off of the hope that we will eventually develop the technology to do these things. As was pointed out by a colleague of mine to me a few years ago, this amounts to having faith in science to learn or do something we have no evidence is possible (realistically or idealistically) to do.

So, is it possible that humans can travel to Alpha Centauri? It is plausible given the fact that humans have developed spacecraft, but we don't have any evidence at the moment that we can realistically build the machines or develop the technology necessary to actually do it. So it isn't possible at this point in human history is all we can say. We can't conclude anything about future possibilities (this seems akin to theists claiming that "one day you'll know")

We can try and model some things based on current understandings and evidence (which is how we model climate change, but that's entirely different).

It appears my use of the word 'observing' is throwing you off.

Let me re-phrase it:
Claiming that the non-existence of X has not been proven is not the same as claiming X is possible.

I thought that was how I interpreted it.

But this too seems somewhat of a trivial point, since non-existence can never be proven. You're restating the burden of proof from a different perspective.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2015, 08:52 AM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 08:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 08:34 AM)Free Wrote:  That's fallacious.

How does one observe a non existence? How does one prove that a non existence is in fact non existent?

That's not what I wrote. It is the proof of non-existence that has not been observed.

And you have reason to assume we can somehow observe proof of a non existence?

Firstly, can you provide any evidence whatsoever that any kind of proof pf non existence actually exists?

No, you can't. You have no reason to hold this position. It is fallacious.

Quote:
Quote:This is fallacious and you know it.

What I wrote is not fallacious.

What you wrote above certainly is, on every level.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2015, 08:58 AM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
Y'know Free, for a joker who's discussing fiddly stuff you sure are quick to accuse people of fallacies. How're you so sure of your own thinking?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2015, 09:00 AM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 08:51 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 08:46 AM)Chas Wrote:  It appears my use of the word 'observing' is throwing you off.

Let me re-phrase it:
Claiming that the non-existence of X has not been proven is not the same as claiming X is possible.

I thought that was how I interpreted it.

But this too seems somewhat of a trivial point, since non-existence can never be proven. You're restating the burden of proof from a different perspective.


It may seem trivial, but it seems to be Near's argument that they are equivalent.

I am pointing out that noting that there is no proof of non-existence does not require or imply a claim about possibility.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2015, 09:02 AM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 08:58 AM)morondog Wrote:  Y'know Free, for a joker who's discussing fiddly stuff you sure are quick to accuse people of fallacies. How're you so sure of your own thinking?

There is no evidence of the existence of God, and no evidence for the possible existence of God.

Where there is no evidence whatsoever for the positive claim of existence, a 7.0 Atheist is perfectly justified to make the positive claim of "God does not exist."

Can I be wrong? Sure, all you need to do is prove me wrong with evidence and I will correct my position.

Until that happens (and it won't), I am 100% certain.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2015, 09:04 AM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 09:00 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 08:51 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I thought that was how I interpreted it.

But this too seems somewhat of a trivial point, since non-existence can never be proven. You're restating the burden of proof from a different perspective.


It may seem trivial, but it seems to be Near's argument that they are equivalent.

I am pointing out that noting that there is no proof of non-existence does not require or imply a claim about possibility.

If the proposed possibility is without evidence, how is it a possibility?

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: