The Burden of Proof
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-10-2015, 01:43 PM (This post was last modified: 20-10-2015 01:46 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 01:36 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  So, the book from which the claim emanates would be evidence against the claim?

The note on the copy right page would be evidence for the Harry Potter being an entirely fictional character.

Quote:If J.K. Rowling said years later she put that in because she had to, or someone claimed that she based the story off of their life and it is therefore based on a true story, do these refute the claim that it is a work of fiction?

Sure, that would be new information, that could lead to the falsification of the previous conclusion that it's entirely a work of fiction. (Of course it could still be partly historically based, and partly fictionally based as well)

Quote:What evidence (actual evidence) exists to corroborate the claim that it is actually a work of fiction?

Well, for one the work would be consistent with works at the time that fall under the genre of fiction, a better written version, of what I might compose if I wanted to write a fictional story about a young wizard.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2015, 01:46 PM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 01:43 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-10-2015 01:36 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  So, the book from which the claim emanates would be evidence against the claim?

The note on the copy right page would be evidence for the Harry Potter being an entirely fictional character.

Quote:If J.K. Rowling said years later she put that in because she had to, or someone claimed that she based the story off of their life and it is therefore based on a true story, do these refute the claim that it is a work of fiction?

Sure, that would be new information, that could lead to the falsification of the previous conclusion.

Quote:What evidence (actual evidence) exists to corroborate the claim that it is actually a work of fiction?

Well, for one the work would be consistent with works at the time that fall under the genre of fiction, a better written version, of what I might compose if I wanted to right a fictional story about wizard.

"The note on the copy right page would be evidence for the Harry Potter being an entirely fictional character."

Words from the claimant are evidence of existence or nonexistence? I claim Bigfoot exists. My friend claims Bigfoot does not exist but used to claim it did exist. Are our claims equal?

"Sure, that would be new information, that could lead to the falsification of the previous conclusion. "

Well, at least your consistent in your idiocy. A person makes a claim about being a wizard, and you take it face value. No wonder you believe in a wizard.

"Well, for one the work would be consistent with works at the time that fall under the genre of fiction, a better written version, of what I might compose if I wanted to right a fictional story about wizard."

So, let me get this straight, if it is a work that is similar to other known texts of fictional origin, this is evidence it is fictional? You going to apply that logic to the biblical stories by comparing them to other known mythological texts Laugh out load

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
20-10-2015, 01:47 PM
RE: The Burden of Proof
I just want to re-highlight this, a good record of theistic hypocrisy.

"Well, for one the work would be consistent with works at the time that fall under the genre of fiction, a better written version, of what I might compose if I wanted to right a fictional story about wizard."

So, let me get this straight, if it is a work that is similar to other known texts of fictional origin, this is evidence it is fictional? You going to apply that logic to the biblical stories by comparing them to other known mythological texts Laugh out load

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
20-10-2015, 01:55 PM
RE: The Burden of Proof
"Sure, that would be new information, that could lead to the falsification of the previous conclusion. "

I also want to point out that this admission, demonstrates that the copyright claim form the book isn't evidence of fictionality if it can be called into question by a claim with no evidence to corroborate it.

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
20-10-2015, 02:08 PM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 09:56 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(20-10-2015 09:50 AM)Lightvader Wrote:  First, we'll look at things that would be there if that entity was there.
For example, loch Ness monster would show up on sonar(I think) and infrared cameras. You look if such an expedition was done(there's always crazy people WILLING to do it) and if the results are negative, it's probably proof enough that it doesn't exist.

Example harry potter.
If hp was real, you would see
1. Lots of people on kings cross station on September with owls and weird clothes.
2. Lots of technology malfunctioning nearby big magical centres without clear cause cuz magic and tech don't mix according to the books.
3. Inconsistencies on what satellite imagery shows us and what we see.
We don't see that, therefore it probably doesn't exist.

None of those are evidence that demonstrates proof positive the conclusion of nonexistence. Those are all negative evidence demonstrating lack of support for the actual claim.

Can there be proof positive (positive evidence) for non-existence or fictionality?
But isn't the absence of evidence in this case evidence of absence? As long as you accept the premise "if x exists, y results must show when we do y test"
Then if y test is done and doesn't show y , then x does not exist

I don't really like going outside.
It's too damn "peopley" out there....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2015, 02:10 PM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 02:08 PM)Lightvader Wrote:  
(20-10-2015 09:56 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  None of those are evidence that demonstrates proof positive the conclusion of nonexistence. Those are all negative evidence demonstrating lack of support for the actual claim.

Can there be proof positive (positive evidence) for non-existence or fictionality?
But isn't the absence of evidence in this case evidence of absence? As long as you accept the premise "if x exists, y results must show when we do y test"
Then if y test is done and doesn't show y , then x does not exist

Logically, yes. All one could expect for something that doesn't exist, is a paucity of evidence. But that isn't actually proof positive evidence of nonexistence (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence), as Tomasia claims exists for fictional or nonexistent characters.

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
20-10-2015, 02:19 PM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 11:44 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Wouldn't the shit be invisible?

Just because it's invisible doesn't mean you can't feel it, Moms, just like gawd.

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2015, 02:20 PM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 01:46 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I claim Bigfoot exists. My friend claims Bigfoot does not exist but used to claim it did exist. Are our claims equal?

Assuming I’m some neutral party here, who hears these two claims without knowing much about bigfoot, and had no view of my own on the subject. I’d first wonder what they mean by Bigfoot, and then ask questions how they came to the conclusion that they do, such as what led you to infer that Bigfoot exists. What led your friend to believe he existed at one point and not at some other point.

Perhaps you’d tell me how you were out in the woods, and saw this tall ape like animal in the woods from some distance, that resembled physical descriptions of Bigfoot. Maybe I’d hear how you drew that conclusion, and conclude that perhaps you did see something from a far off that looked like Bigfoot, that perhaps it was some pranksters in the wood you saw.

Perhaps your friend on other hand believed at one point that Big Foot existed, because he read so many account of people seeing him in the woods, and couldn’t believe that they were all just making it up. Perhaps later he learns of how many of these accounts were hoaxes, how various pictures were manipulated, various sighting were staged, how many accounts are about a distant observations, and perhaps the mind playing tricks on the observer. He then concluded that Big Foot is more likely a hoax, and so popular that some people see hazy reflections of him in the dark.

Perhaps I’ll agree that your friends inferences are more reasonable than yours, perhaps we’ll try to get you to consider your sighting in lieu of other sightings, trying to lead you to what we think is correct here, that you likely saw some hazy reflection in the dark, or some kids were probably playing a prank on an unsuspecting campers like yourself.

Quote:"Sure, that would be new information, that could lead to the falsification of the previous conclusion. "

Well, at least your consistent in your idiocy. A person makes a claim about being a wizard, and you take it face value. No wonder you believe in a wizard.

Sorry, I'm only vaguely familiar with the Harry Potter series, and I assumed the earlier scenario, involved a person claiming some non-magical parts of Harry Potter life and person, was based on his.

Quote:So, let me get this straight, if it is a work that is similar to other known texts of fictional origin, this is evidence it is fictional?

If a work falls into the style and composition of fiction at the time, then it would evidence in support of it being fictional.

Quote:You going to apply that logic to the biblical stories by comparing them to other known mythological texts Laugh out load

I read stories like Noah Ark, the Garden of Eden, Jonah and the Whale, Samson, etc... the way I would read stories in Greek mythologies, and other Mythological stories. I don't read the stories in the Bible in some special way that I wouldn't read the Qu'ran, the Pali Canon, or even Dostoevsky, or Shakespeare.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2015, 02:22 PM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 02:20 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-10-2015 01:46 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "The note on the copy right page would be evidence for the Harry Potter being an entirely fictional character."
Quote:Words from the claimant are evidence of existence or nonexistence? I claim Bigfoot exists. My friend claims Bigfoot does not exist but used to claim it did exist. Are our claims equal?

Assuming I’m some neutral party here, who hears these two claims without knowing much about bigfoot, and had no view of my own on the subject. I’d first wonder what they mean by Bigfoot, and then ask questions how they came to the conclusion that they do, such as what led you to infer that Bigfoot exists. What led your friend to believe he existed at one point and not at some other point.

Perhaps you’d tell me how you were out in the woods, and saw this tall ape like animal in the woods from some distance, that resembled physical descriptions of Bigfoot. Maybe I’d hear how you drew that conclusion, and conclude that perhaps you did see something from a far off that looked like Bigfoot, that perhaps it was some pranksters in the wood you saw.

Perhaps your friend on other hand believed at one point that Big Foot existed, because he read so many account of people seeing him in the woods, and couldn’t believe that they were all just making it up. Perhaps later he learns of how many of these accounts were hoaxes, how various pictures were manipulated, various sighting were staged, how many accounts are about a distant observations, and perhaps the mind playing tricks on the observer. He then concluded that Big Foot is more likely a hoax, and so popular that some people see hazy reflections of him in the dark.

Perhaps I’ll agree that your friends inferences are more reasonable than yours, perhaps we’ll try to get you to consider your sighting in lieu of other sightings, trying to lead you to what we think is correct here, that you likely saw some hazy reflection in the dark, or some kids were probably playing a prank on an unsuspecting campers like yourself.

[quote]"Sure, that would be new information, that could lead to the falsification of the previous conclusion. "

Well, at least your consistent in your idiocy. A person makes a claim about being a wizard, and you take it face value. No wonder you believe in a wizard.

Sorry, I'm only vaguely familiar with the Harry Potter series, and I assumed the earlier scenario, involved a person claiming some non-magical parts of Harry Potter life and person, was based on his.

Quote:So, let me get this straight, if it is a work that is similar to other known texts of fictional origin, this is evidence it is fictional?

If a work falls into the style and composition of fiction at the time, then it would evidence in support of it being fictional.

Quote:You going to apply that logic to the biblical stories by comparing them to other known mythological texts Laugh out load

I read stories like Noah Ark, the Garden of Eden, Jonah and the Whale, Samson, etc... the way I would read stories in Greek mythologies, and other Mythological stories. I don't read the stories in the Bible in some special way that I wouldn't read the Qu'ran, the Pali Canon, or even Dostoevsky, or Shakespeare.

"If a work falls into the style and composition of fiction at the time, then it would evidence in support of it being fictional. "

But you don't accept the bible as fiction.

"I read stories like Noah Ark, the Garden of Eden, Jonah and the Whale, Samson, etc... the way I would read stories in Greek mythologies, and other Mythological stories. I don't read the stories in the Bible in some special way that I wouldn't read the Qu'ran, the Pali Canon, or even Dostoevsky, or Shakespeare."

But you assume Hercules isn't real and Jesus is.



Who has the burden of proof here TommyBoy? The person claiming existence, or the person rejecting the claim of existence?

^Since you can't actually provide evidence of nonexistence, how about you answer these two questions.

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
20-10-2015, 02:29 PM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 01:55 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "Sure, that would be new information, that could lead to the falsification of the previous conclusion. "

I also want to point out that this admission, demonstrates that the copyright claim form the book isn't evidence of fictionality if it can be called into question by a claim with no evidence to corroborate it.

If we can reasonably infer from things like a copyright claim that a work is likely to be fictional, it's evidence. It may not be proof, but it is evidence.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: