My Take on the Burden of Proof
|
|
|
22-10-2012, 05:54 PM
|
||||
|
||||
RE: My Take on the Burden of Proof
(22-10-2012 05:47 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:What makes you think that the law of double negation is dependent on the law of the excluded middle? Fuckin' GirlyMan, come at me!(22-10-2012 05:26 PM)Vosur Wrote: I don't want to be nit-picky, but you actually can prove a negative. That claim has long been refuted. ![]() ![]() |
||||
22-10-2012, 06:04 PM
(This post was last modified: 22-10-2012 06:27 PM by GirlyMan.)
|
||||
|
||||
RE: My Take on the Burden of Proof
(22-10-2012 05:54 PM)Vosur Wrote: What makes you think that the law of double negation is dependent on the law of the excluded middle? Fuckin' GirlyMan, come at me! Goddam I hate fucking Germans, especially teenage ones with grammatical skills better than most native English speakers. (Nah, I'm just teasing. ![]() Negation as failure under the OWA: "I dunno if P is true or false." Double negation as failure under the OWA: "I dunno if I dunno if P is true or false." An example would be if determining whether I dunno or not was itself intractable. EDIT: Look at Girly, using double negation to argue against double negation, yeah I'm a vulgar hairless walking talking contradiction monkey. It's best this way. Nobody gets hurt. ![]() #sigh |
||||
![]() |
22-10-2012, 06:07 PM
|
||||
|
||||
RE: My Take on the Burden of Proof
(22-10-2012 01:02 AM)Reltzik Wrote: In the theist vs. atheist debate, who has the burden of proof? This is a question that comes up a lot, and then promptly turns into a game of hot potato. The goal is to make sure that the OTHER person is stuck holding it. I'd hazard to guess that most members here would say that theists have the burden of proof, and that most theists would say the burden lies with atheists. Oddly enough, I've rarely heard much analysis of WHY the burden of proof lies with one party or another, beyond simple one-liners or phrases like "self-evident". (I'd have thought skeptical atheists, at least, would try to support their position.) So I thought I'd try my hand at it, and came to a... somewhat unusual conclusion. I see what you're trying to say. But, I'm inclined to agree with Chas. Further, I don't see how laying ground rules like this helps win theists to reason. Their positions are almost always the result of emotional investment and/or personal experience and emotional/cultural manipulation, not reason. The words "burden of proof" usually seem meaningless to them. He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! -Brian's mum |
||||
22-10-2012, 06:38 PM
|
||||
|
||||
RE: My Take on the Burden of Proof
(22-10-2012 06:04 PM)GirlyMan Wrote: Goddam I hate fucking Germans, especially teenage ones with grammatical skills better than most native English speakers. (Nah, I'm just teasing.When I prove P to be true, you can be all like "I dunno" all day long for all I care, still doesn't mean that I can't conclude that not-not-P is false. (22-10-2012 06:04 PM)GirlyMan Wrote: EDIT: Look at Girly, using double negation to argue against double negation, yeah I'm a vulgar hairless walking talking contradiction monkey. It's best this way. Nobody gets hurt.I almost peed my pants laughing. ![]() ![]() |
||||
![]() |
22-10-2012, 07:03 PM
(This post was last modified: 22-10-2012 07:21 PM by GirlyMan.)
|
||||
|
||||
RE: My Take on the Burden of Proof
(22-10-2012 06:38 PM)Vosur Wrote: When I prove P to be true, you can be all like "I dunno" all day long for all I care, still doesn't mean that I can't conclude that not-not-P is false. You have to choose an axiomatic basis for your proof. Your proof is valid only with respect to these axioms. When you change the axioms, you change the logic, your proof changes. That's one main reason logic is so powerful and useful. There are many different formal logics and formulations, all useful with respect to the axioms required of their specific domains. "Proof" is a relative concept inextricably intertwined with a specific formal logic formulation and its axioms. #sigh |
||||
22-10-2012, 07:20 PM
|
||||
|
||||
RE: My Take on the Burden of Proof
Hey, Chas.
You and I are discussing different things. I am discussing whether or not God exists. You are discussing the nature of God's qualities. My only issue with that is that 100% of God's qualities as described could be false and that does not negate the existence of God in the least. It simply means that people have described him poorly or questionably. Mine is a question about the nature of the universe. Yours is a question of doctrinal validity. Hey, Vosur. My brain lacks the energy to process that article at the moment, but I fully accept that my statement may be incorrect. I'm not even that big a champion of it. Richard Dawkins throws it around a lot and I've just begun to use it as a way of expressing a diversity of opinion. Regardless, all it means is that if it is in fact possible to prove a negative, then the burden still falls to the claimant, ie, the Atheist claiming there is no God. Hey, Girly. Did I not just say my brain is out of juice? How dare you contradict Vosur's contradiction. My brain; however, is only thinking this: Schrödinger's cat! Suck it, non-contradiction ![]() Peace and Love and Empathy, Matt |
||||
22-10-2012, 07:28 PM
|
||||
|
||||
RE: My Take on the Burden of Proof
(22-10-2012 07:20 PM)Ghost Wrote: Hey, Chas. Not exactly. The evidence I perceive is evidence against any of the gods that people describe as existing. The only kind of god against which there is not strong evidence is the remote-control deist god. However, there are strong logical arguments against that one. I am largely arguing from a position of a rationalist materialist. Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims. Science is not a subject, but a method. ![]() |
||||
22-10-2012, 07:36 PM
|
||||
|
||||
RE: My Take on the Burden of Proof
(22-10-2012 07:20 PM)Ghost Wrote: Hey, Vosur.I agree with you on that. (22-10-2012 07:03 PM)GirlyMan Wrote: You have to choose an axiomatic basis for your proof. Your proof is valid only with respect to these axioms. When you change the axioms, you change the logic, your proof changes. That's one main reason logic is so powerful and useful. There are many different formal logics and formulations, all useful with respect to the axioms required of their specific domains. "Proof" is a relative concept inextricably intertwined with a specific formal logic formulation and its axioms.Fucking GirlyMan, making me grab an English-German dictionary because I have no clue what he's talking about. ![]() ![]() |
||||
![]() |
22-10-2012, 08:00 PM
|
||||
|
||||
RE: My Take on the Burden of Proof
(22-10-2012 07:20 PM)Ghost Wrote: Hey, Girly. Sorry, Ghost. In a nutshell, Girly don't worship logic anymore than I worship God. Which logic should I worship? The one that admits the Law of the Excluded Middle or the one that doesn't? The bivalent one or the multivalent ones? The crisp one or the fuzzy ones? The consistent one or the paraconsistent ones? ... Girly don't worship shit, Ghost. Girly uses shit. #sigh |
||||
22-10-2012, 08:02 PM
|
||||
|
||||
RE: My Take on the Burden of Proof
(22-10-2012 08:00 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:(22-10-2012 07:20 PM)Ghost Wrote: Hey, Girly. Doesn't Girly worship Manly? ![]() Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims. Science is not a subject, but a method. ![]() |
||||
![]() |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)