Evidence Of Absence.

[cjlr]

(23-08-2015 07:53 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  

(23-08-2015 07:50 AM)cjlr Wrote:  But... but... it's just so much easier to argue against people when you make up their positions for them!

I find it easier to just quote them directly.

Truncated and out of context.

There's a term for that, hoss; we call that quote mining.

[Matt Finney]

(23-08-2015 07:58 AM)cjlr Wrote:  

(23-08-2015 05:49 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  My problem with this is that as far as I can tell, it doesn't address the question of: What does it mean when someone says they know something?

If you tell me that you know Pythagorean theorem is true in Euclidean geometry, and I have no knowledge of Pythagorean theorem, then all that I can gather is that the theorem is something you believe to be true.

Except... not. That's his whole point. Belief is irrelevant; the theorem is a construct within Euclidean geometry.

(23-08-2015 05:49 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  After I investigate the theorem, if I find it to be true, then I would agree with you that you know it, but if I found a flaw, then I would say that you don't know it. Obviously I'm not going to find any flaws in Pythagorean theorem, but surely you can agree that someone could claim a theorem that is flawed.

A proven mathematical theorem is axiomatic.

(23-08-2015 05:49 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  In this case, we would say that the person didn't know the theorem was true, and that they only believed it. Maybe the problem is that we're just defining belief too differently. If I asked you if you think that Pythagorean theorem is true in Euclidean geometry, and you answer "yes", I think we could say that this is something you believe, as I would define belief as something you think is true, and if you answer "no", I don't we could say that you know it.

It's not a matter of definitions; he's given you a context in which it's simply irrelevant. To force the definition of "belief" to apply to the definitions of constructs is at best misguided.

So, if someone believes that Pythagorean theorem is false, do they still know it's true?

What about someone who doesn't know anything about geometry? Do small children have knowledge of Pythagorean theorem? You say you can avoid belief, but I think you fail in showing how.

[Matt Finney]

(23-08-2015 07:59 AM)cjlr Wrote:  

(23-08-2015 07:53 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  I find it easier to just quote them directly.

Truncated and out of context.

There's a term for that, hoss; we call that quote mining.

Please explain the context then. I must have misunderstood. Can you make it clearer?

[morondog]

(23-08-2015 08:20 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  

(23-08-2015 07:59 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Truncated and out of context.

There's a term for that, hoss; we call that quote mining.

Please explain the context then. I must have misunderstood. Can you make it clearer?

You only partially quoted TBD. He was clearly being sarcastic, as evidenced by the quotation marks in his post. This was not his position, you attributed it to him and then only partially quoted him. While it may have been unintentional, it looked like you were deliberately trying to portray his position as other than it was.

[Matt Finney]

(23-08-2015 08:37 AM)morondog Wrote:  

(23-08-2015 08:20 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Please explain the context then. I must have misunderstood. Can you make it clearer?

You only partially quoted TBD. He was clearly being sarcastic, as evidenced by the quotation marks in his post. This was not his position, you attributed it to him and then only partially quoted him. While it may have been unintentional, it looked like you were deliberately trying to portray his position as other than it was.

I wish he was being sarcastic, but he seemed very well aligned with free, who believes that everything not known to exist, is known to not exist.

Also, if he was being sarcastic, then we would have been in agreement, and there would have been no argument in the first place.

[TheBeardedDude]

(23-08-2015 08:57 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  

(23-08-2015 08:37 AM)morondog Wrote:  You only partially quoted TBD. He was clearly being sarcastic, as evidenced by the quotation marks in his post. This was not his position, you attributed it to him and then only partially quoted him. While it may have been unintentional, it looked like you were deliberately trying to portray his position as other than it was.

I wish he was being sarcastic, but he seemed very well aligned with free, who believes that everything not known to exist, is known to not exist.

Also, if he was being sarcastic, then we would have been in agreement, and there would have been no argument in the first place.

Here is the full quote:
"That IS the conclusion reached. The difference is that there exists a species in the universe that has developed spacecraft. So it is plausible that life exists elsewhere in the universe (because it exists on Earth), it is plausible that intelligent life exists (because it exists on Earth) that has developed aircraft/spacecraft (because humans have developed them on Earth). It being plausible (and these are all detectable things) doesn't mean they do exist, only that there exists logical reasons and evidence to suggest they might exist.

This is the very same reason that it is hypothesized that other universes exist, because at least one exists."



Where at in it do I make the claim that "...everything not known to exist, is known to not exist." Because if I don't make that claim, then you have quote-mined me by cherry-picking out one piece of what I said to misrepresent exactly what I meant (that is a fucking straw man).

[TheBeardedDude]

(23-08-2015 08:37 AM)morondog Wrote:  

(23-08-2015 08:20 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Please explain the context then. I must have misunderstood. Can you make it clearer?

You only partially quoted TBD. He was clearly being sarcastic, as evidenced by the quotation marks in his post. This was not his position, you attributed it to him and then only partially quoted him. While it may have been unintentional, it looked like you were deliberately trying to portray his position as other than it was.

He is always straw manning people. It is hard to tell if it is intentional dishonesty or if he is so oblivious to the dishonesty that he doesn't see it at all.

[Matt Finney]

(23-08-2015 09:05 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  

(23-08-2015 08:57 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  I wish he was being sarcastic, but he seemed very well aligned with free, who believes that everything not known to exist, is known to not exist.

Also, if he was being sarcastic, then we would have been in agreement, and there would have been no argument in the first place.

Here is the full quote:
"That IS the conclusion reached. The difference is that there exists a species in the universe that has developed spacecraft. So it is plausible that life exists elsewhere in the universe (because it exists on Earth), it is plausible that intelligent life exists (because it exists on Earth) that has developed aircraft/spacecraft (because humans have developed them on Earth). It being plausible (and these are all detectable things) doesn't mean they do exist, only that there exists logical reasons and evidence to suggest they might exist.

This is the very same reason that it is hypothesized that other universes exist, because at least one exists."



Where at in it do I make the claim that "...everything not known to exist, is known to not exist." Because if I don't make that claim, then you have quote-mined me by cherry-picking out one piece of what I said to misrepresent exactly what I meant (that is a fucking straw man).

Right. I think you finally realized your error and instead of admitting to it, you flip-flopped and hoped that no one would notice.

[TheBeardedDude]

(23-08-2015 10:04 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  

(23-08-2015 09:05 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Here is the full quote:
"That IS the conclusion reached. The difference is that there exists a species in the universe that has developed spacecraft. So it is plausible that life exists elsewhere in the universe (because it exists on Earth), it is plausible that intelligent life exists (because it exists on Earth) that has developed aircraft/spacecraft (because humans have developed them on Earth). It being plausible (and these are all detectable things) doesn't mean they do exist, only that there exists logical reasons and evidence to suggest they might exist.

This is the very same reason that it is hypothesized that other universes exist, because at least one exists."



Where at in it do I make the claim that "...everything not known to exist, is known to not exist." Because if I don't make that claim, then you have quote-mined me by cherry-picking out one piece of what I said to misrepresent exactly what I meant (that is a fucking straw man).

Right. I think you finally realized your error and instead of admitting to it, you flip-flopped and hoped that no one would notice.

Fuck you're stupid. I point out your straw man and you immediately play it as me being the dishonest one.

[Matt Finney]

(23-08-2015 10:10 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Fuck you're stupid. I point out your straw man and you immediately play it as me being the dishonest one.

Your words, not mine pal.

(22-08-2015 10:13 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  

(22-08-2015 10:09 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  I agree with pretty much everything you said except I don't think we can conclude that aliens don't exist. And, while I agree that the god theory is implausible, I wouldn't go as far to say that I know it is impossible (I know that you aren't claiming god to be impossible here either, but just wanted to add that for clarification on my position).

"...except I don't think we can conclude that aliens don't exist."

Then you don't understand burden of proof. The only logical conclusion until the burden of proof is met, is nonexistence/non-ocurrence.

If I hypothesize that a virus killed off the dinosaurs, we can easily test for what happened. With no evidence to support my hypothesis of a virus killing the dinosaurs, we should conclude that it is not possible (through a complete and utter lack of support and evidence) that the virus killed the dinosaurs. Even though it is not implausible.

Now, look at the same example, but substitute aliens.