[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 (matthuse@ix.netcom.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.

: Regards,
: 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

Follow-Ups: References: