[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Atawallpa was no chicken (It was Re: chicken in America: from Asia? (cont.))
August Matthusen (email@example.com) wrote:
: Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
: > This is for Peter to read and to think about. Also for others who are
so : > enamoured with endlessly rehashing the _argumentum ex silentio_.
Don't : > you get tired of such simplemindedness, people?
: > particularly in archaeology. But it is only crucial when it can be
: > proven that one has no hope of ever finding what one is lacking.
: Non sequitur, science doesn't prove anything and trying to prove
: a negative is an exercise best left for invisible pink unicorns(tm).
: (Proof of the non-existence of invisible pink unicorns(tm) is left as
: an exercise for the reader).
Geez, these guys are now _really mad_ it seems. They want to battle in
August, before you try to trample me down, please consider the fact that
I didn't write that file. Why don't you go and chew out the guys at the
"Scriptorium". This file is available at
Give them hell, August. I bet you they didn't even know how they offended
the true master logician, August! Soon they'll find out...
Honest, I didn't write it. And these guys have no connection with me.
Really, I don't control them... This is NOT a conspiracy!
: > On : > the other hand, beware of arguments that are intentionally
based on a : > lack of evidence. That is, some people claim that the fact
that there : > is no evidence proves something. This is called an
argument from : > silence. It must be rejected for lack of evidence.
: Is it just me or is this entire argument circular and "intentially
: based on a lack of evidence"? Again, science doesn't "prove" anything,
: so the sentence "some people claim that the fact that there is no
: evidence proves something" is fallacious and non-scientific. Second,
: this "logic" claims that it is ok to reject "an argument from silence"
: for *lack of evidence*. In effect you're saying it's ok to reject
: arguments based on *no evidence* for *lack of evidence* If this is
: so, then why can't other arguments be rejected for "lack of evidence?"
: > There are a number
: > of rules of logic that apply in a simple way to the interpretation of
: > data.
: You have to have some data before you can interpret them.
: > Always think clearly and use careful rules of logic.
: A few of which are: Don't hypothesize without evidence; erect testable
: hypotheses which can be falsified; test your hypotheses.
: August Matthusen
=O= Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto =O=
--- a webpage like any other... http://www.io.org/~yuku ---
We should always be disposed to believe that that which
appears white is really black, if the hierarchy of the
Church so decides === St. Ignatius of Loyola