The Burden of Proof
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-10-2015, 02:30 PM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 02:29 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(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.

Nope, I have already explained to you that this is a fallacious claim (your admission that even a claim of contradiction would be reason to doubt this "evidence" demonstrates it isn't evidence. Evidence of a claim, is evidence regardless of counter-claims).

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, 02:32 PM
RE: The Burden of Proof
I am just so damned confused here TommyBoy.

I mean, you said "There’s abundant and compelling evidence that Harry Potter is an entirely fictional character, and not evidence even remotely in support of him being a historical person, or being based on one."

And yet...you haven't provided any...


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, 02:33 PM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 02:10 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(20-10-2015 02:08 PM)Lightvader Wrote:  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 t

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.

How about this?
There is this myth that there is a fat man with a beard in a red suit delivering presents on Christmas night called Santa.
If this myth was true, we wouldn't see parents putting presents at night and claiming it was Santa.
We do see parents putting presents I the night for their kids claiming Santa did it. So Santa doesn't exist.

If that doesn't count, I don't see what would, so then I got nothing
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2015, 02:34 PM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 02:33 PM)Lightvader Wrote:  
(20-10-2015 02:10 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  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.

How about this?
There is this myth that there is a fat man with a beard in a red suit delivering presents on Christmas night called Santa.
If this myth was true, we wouldn't see parents putting presents at night and claiming it was Santa.
We do see parents putting presents I the night for their kids claiming Santa did it. So Santa doesn't exist.

If that doesn't count, I don't see what would, so then I got nothing

"If that doesn't count, I don't see what would, so then I got nothing"

That's the point, there is no such thing as evidence of nonexistence.

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, 02:36 PM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 02:30 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Nope, I have already explained to you that this is a fallacious claim (your admission that even a claim of contradiction would be reason to doubt this "evidence" demonstrates it isn't evidence. Evidence of a claim, is evidence regardless of counter-claims).

A man is tried and convicted of a crime based on a series of evidence the prosecution presents to the court. He sentenced to 10 years, and years later new DNA evidence emerges to exonerate him.

Does the fact that he's been exonerated based on new evidence, mean that the prosecution at the time didn't have evidence at all at the time?

"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, 02:37 PM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 02:33 PM)Lightvader Wrote:  
(20-10-2015 02:10 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  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.

How about this?
There is this myth that there is a fat man with a beard in a red suit delivering presents on Christmas night called Santa.
If this myth was true, we wouldn't see parents putting presents at night and claiming it was Santa.
We do see parents putting presents I the night for their kids claiming Santa did it. So Santa doesn't exist.

If that doesn't count, I don't see what would, so then I got nothing

I'll explain it this way. There is a paleontologist (who is a known quack) who presented research a few years back about a giant kraken from the Mesozoic that made murals of itself out of the bones of giant ichthyosaurs. The burden of proof for this claim, is on the paleontologist making the absurd claim. In the light of the absence of evidence (compelling evidence that logically connects to the conclusion), his claim can simply be dismissed as utterly preposterous and more fiction than fact. It isn't required to provide evidence refuting his claim in order to reject 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, 02:37 PM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 02:36 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-10-2015 02:30 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Nope, I have already explained to you that this is a fallacious claim (your admission that even a claim of contradiction would be reason to doubt this "evidence" demonstrates it isn't evidence. Evidence of a claim, is evidence regardless of counter-claims).

A man is tried and convicted of a crime based on a series of evidence the prosecution presents to the court. He sentenced to 10 years, and years later new DNA evidence emerges to exonerate him.

Does the fact that he's been exonerated based on new evidence, mean that the prosecution at the time didn't have evidence at all?

Red herring. (DNA evidence isn't a claim, it is testable and falsifiable evidence)

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, 02:39 PM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 02:37 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(20-10-2015 02:36 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  A man is tried and convicted of a crime based on a series of evidence the prosecution presents to the court. He sentenced to 10 years, and years later new DNA evidence emerges to exonerate him.

Does the fact that he's been exonerated based on new evidence, mean that the prosecution at the time didn't have evidence at all?

Red herring.

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.

It's not a red herring, it's question trying to have you clarify what you mean by evidence, particularly when an earlier conclusion is negated by new information.

"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, 02:40 PM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 02:39 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-10-2015 02:37 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Red herring.

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.

It's not a red herring, it's question trying to have you clarify what you mean by evidence, particularly when an earlier conclusion is negated by new information.

I can't explain it any simpler (and it is a red herring, I don't know what "evidence" was used to convict your felon. Answer the questions and stop dodging with logical fallacies)

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, 02:47 PM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 02:37 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Red herring. (DNA evidence isn't a claim, it is testable and falsifiable evidence)

But when it's later used as evidence to exonerate someone previously convicted, what does that mean in regards to the evidence that prosecution used at the time to convict him? Does the fact that's he's been exonerated by DNA evidence, mean that the prosecution at the time didn't have any evidence at all?

(we're assuming here, an honest legal proceedings, and a reasonable jury and judge, that earlier convicted him)

"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: