Half naked

[kenzomatic]

totalwar23 said:

Grey Acumen said:

totalwar23 said:

Grey Acumen said:

lol, yeah, pretty much, but the internet is vast, and I'm sure there will be a few people that appreciate the mental effort.

though i can't help but point out that "mutilato" is confusing "logically" with "legally"

Well, the example he used is a case of legality but legality follows strict logic anyways. Anyways, he was right on the money. Declaring that something might exist because there's no evidence to support its nonexistant is a fallacy.

Except that's not true. First off, sayign that legality follows strict logic is like saying that Politicians all have the people's best interest at heart.
umm...What? Care to elaborate on that?

Second of all, if there's no evidence to the contrary, then it MIGHT exist. It doesn't prove that it DOES exist, merely that it CAN. What people forget so easily is that just because the opposing argument hasn't been proven true doesn't make you side of the argument true either.

And what would the other side of the argument be in this case? To first suggest that something might exist, you need some kind of evidence or logical reasoning to support its existence even if you're not out to conclusively support its existence. Otherwise, it won't be logical. Take this example:

Guy 1: Vulcans might exist.

Guy 2: What?

Guy 1: They might exist in a galaxy far, far away.

Guy 2: Where's your proof?

Guy 1: Where's your proof that they don't exist?

Guy 2: But the burden of proof is on you.

Guy 1: But you can't prove that they don't exist so you must accept the possibility that they exist

Now how logical was that? Should we now accept the prossibility that Vulcans exist? It's kind of like putting a single number as an answer to a math (or engineering) test question. Your instructor will ask you "How did you arrive at this answer?" As you failed to showed your logical reasoning as to how you approached to that answer, you would get a zero for your answer whether it was right or not.

 

1st he is saying laws do not follow logic. ie You can get an abortion without parental consent but you can not go into a rehab for drugs without consent.

2nd Look at Stephen Hawking I’m simplifying but he basically decided that information could be destroyed in black holes (they would disappear over time) and told the rest of the community to prove him wrong. Which they did. (well sort of)

Also if you are to convince someone that they are wrong and that Vulcans don’t exist well then you will need the evidence as the burden is on you. What are they going to do magically wake up and say Vulcans don’t exist.

Saying they have to prove it is a smug attitude that in no way is practical in reality, If you want AIDS to stop in Africa you can’t just hand people condoms you have to convince them they are needed.

People believe some vaccines cause autism, Saying it’s up to them to prove it is stupid, they need to be informed because their children need those vaccines.

And guess what there is a possibility, no matter how small that Vulcans might exist.

Your analogy with math is completely wrong, It’s more like saying that you have an identical twin some where on earth. The only evidence one way or the other “to you” is going to be a probability. And that is not YES or NO. So you can not say 100% that you do not have a twin. Hell if you really want to get into it you can’t say for 100% that I exist. All you can do is say it is not very likely.

Now onto Argument and Persuasion, fallacies do not make people wrong. All they do is strip credibility where the fallacy is.

Here are some common fallacies, which I assure you lawyers do use. You are even guilty of some.(As am I) Hasty Generalization, Faulty Use of Authority, Post Hoc or Doubtful Cause, False Analogy, Ad Hominem, False Dilemma, Slippery Slope, Begging the Question, Straw Man.

“Just because you don't have evidence that something does exist that does not mean that you have evidence that it does not exist.”

Now this statement in it’s self is logic.

The Argument form Ignorance fallacy is more in absolutes.

"You can't prove God doesn't exist, so God exists"
"You can't prove God does exist, so God doesn't exist"

See there is a declaration of YES or NO not maybe.

Now to Burden of proof, well this has many contexts. But the bottom line is the burden of proof is always going to be on the person who wants to change others mind. So if our Vulcan guy is trying to convince you then the burden of proof is on him. But if your trying to convince him he’s wrong then its on you. And if both then both. That’s the reality no matter what Websters says.