I'd love to see where I said that.

Please note that I have not done so. In fact, I've specified that we can function quite well (I would say optimally) without assuming the existence of things for which there is no evidence. So kindly amend your blanket critique of "all of you." It does not apply to me.

---
What others say about boorite!

addendum:

quote:

---

I've specified that we can function quite well (I would say optimally) without assuming the existence of things for which there is no evidence...

---

Boorite--

By "y'all" I am referring to all those "agnostic" types who think we can't infer nonexistence from a lack of evidence, not you.

quote:

---

Here's the concrete example:

All observed swans are white.
Therefore, all swans (even the unobserved) are white.
We can also conclude from this that no swans are black, because all the swans we observed are white, and there is no evidence for a black swan.

As you can see, the inductive inference that "all swans are white" entails that we reject the idea that there are black swans because there is no evidence.

---

quote:

---

Boorite--

By "y'all" I am referring to all those "agnostic" types who think we can't infer nonexistence from a lack of evidence, not you.

---

Does Father Time exist?

If father time is a metaphor for time itself, then yes. If father time is some old man with a beard who somehow controls time, then no.

Is the Earth your Mother?

If you mean that the Earth is my mother in that I am a creature that was born on it and sustained by the things on it, then yes. If you mean that it is literally a mother that has thoughts and feelings and cares about me, then no.

Will the Grim Reaper come for you?

If you mean "death" by the grim reaper, then yes. If you mean "some skeleton in a robe", then no.

Did Romeo commit suicide?

The fictional character called Romeo did indeed commit suicide.

Fuckin' geeks.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

I agree with your assessment of the swan argument...but the only thing I don't understand is when you say that you think my version of it is "terrible logic".

You see, your version of it is basically getting into the nitty gritty of falsification, showing how a supposed falsification can be ignored and how a certain type or quality of evidence is required to truly falsify a theory.

I wasn't really getting into any of that. I am only pointing out that the inference is valid--if we only observe white swans, we can conclude that all swans are white.

Now, anyone familiar with induction knows this isn't any sort of absolute proof. Unlike a deductive argument, where the conclusion absolutely follows, this is one based upon probability, where it only seems highly LIKELY that the conclusion will follow. But it is still POSSIBLE to see a black swan, and to have good evidence of black swans overturn this theory.

(The funny thing, boorite, is that there really ARE black swans! But that doesn't mean the original inference isn't valid.)

We have to examine WHY we think this is improbable, though. Because we have not observed ANY black swans. The absence of any evidence for a black swan leads us to conclude that there are no black swans. After all, the only reason we concluded that all swans were white in the first place was because there was an absence of evidence to the contrary.

But I, for the large part, agree with most of the things you've been saying Boorite. Your points about the semantics are good ones--we can only refute a certain definition of God, but not some undefined "mystical" one--which is what some theists will do. I've had personal experience with such mystics, and the proper way to deal with them is to adopt your own tactic--to say, well, you're not really saying anything exists if you haven't defined what "God" means!

And actually, your discussion about how one would falsify the swan theory is a bit problematic for the "falsification" view of science. It shows how theories try to "protect" themselves from falsification. I suspect you've read Kuhn's Structures of Scientific Revolutions?

refute what? you already conceded the point i was trying to make.

"science is only equipped to deal with natural phenomenon. It does not say whether the supernatural exists or not exists. Keep in mind that I have never argued that science "disproves" God's existence. My own argument for inferring nonexistence is a philosophical one, not a scientific one..."

you keep adressing me despite the fact that i told you i didn't want a philosophical argument. why would i? what's the point of debating when you already conceded my point?

all you're doing now is looking the fool by claiming No Evidence = Evidence, and contradicting yourself by claiming untestable phenomenon adhere to the scientific method and are scientific. so scientific, obviously, that you have to use a philosophical argument to make your case. then you get mad when i repeat i have no desire to have a philosophical argument on a point you already conceded to me. that opinion was quickly affirmed and reaffirmed when i barely scanned your philosophical argument and found a logical gaff in your using an argument from ignorance.

we had a scientific debate. you conceeded the point i was making. and as i predicted (when i explained why i'd rather stick to scientific rather than philosophical debates), your philosophical argument is full of assumption, personal opinion, holes, undefined items, and logical fallacy, which, despite not wanting to have a philosophical debate, i posted for your edification since it seemed important to you, and the logical rule was clear. but your only counter is to hide in epistemology. your only basis being the desperate one that scientific method can only be justified through induction.

well, guess what. induction can only be justified through induction. that begs the question. go ahead and have at it, tackling a posit no one has been able to successfully counter since Hume presented it.

in the meantime, i'll continue to post this, and probably little else, everytime you contradict yourself while addressing me:

"science is only equipped to deal with natural phenomenon. It does not say whether the supernatural exists or not exists. Keep in mind that I have never argued that science "disproves" God's existence. My own argument for inferring nonexistence is a philosophical one, not a scientific one..."

get used to that paragraph. embrace it. love it.

because you said it.

---
what if nigger meant kite

*casts invert penis on MikeyG*

---
what if nigger meant kite

If father time is a metaphor for time itself, then yes. If father time is some old man with a beard who somehow controls time, then no.

What if God is a metaphor for (or anthropomorphization of) natural processes? Then yes? Or do we use a different standard for God than for Father Time?

If you mean that the Earth is my mother in that I am a creature that was born on it and sustained by the things on it, then yes. If you mean that it is literally a mother that has thoughts and feelings and cares about me, then no.

Not literally, we agree. Then given God as metaphor for unspecified or poorly-articulated or even unarticulatable natural processes, could it be true that God is one's Father or Lord, in that one might receive insight or advice or instruction from It?

If you mean "death" by the grim reaper, then yes. If you mean "some skeleton in a robe", then no.

Then will God appear if you seek Him?

The fictional character called Romeo did indeed commit suicide.

How could something that doesn't exist do anything?

---
What others say about boorite!

I know. That's why I think it's a good example.

You asked what's the difference between my logic and your logic, and why I called yours "terrible." It's because your logic leads you to infer that there are no black swans, a conclusion that subsequent observation proves false. False is the opposite of true.

The logic I outlined, on the other hand, inferred only that the likelihood of seeing a black swan is somewhat less than that of several alternative hypotheses that would explain why Joe claimed to have seen one, given the facts as we know them. And strictly speaking, this inference is true. Note that conclusions drawn from such reasoning are contingent, subject to amendment given further evidence. And that's why science works.

We have to examine WHY we think this is improbable, though. Because we have not observed ANY black swans.

And the strength of any inference we draw from this lack of black swan sightings is directly proportional to the overall number of swan sightings. If we had only ever seen one swan, and it was white, we would be in a poor position to predict the color of the next swan we see. If, on the other hand, we had seen millions, and all were white, we would be inclined to bet money that the next one will be white, also.

Then it has led you to conclude something false.

If, on the other hand, the absence of non-white swans leads us to assign a high degree of probability to the sentence, "the swan is white," then we are just being reasonable.

I had a strong feeling you did. Thus the dialectic.

Exactly.

I don't see how. The old theory is that all swans are white. The new theory on offer is that Joe saw a black swan; therefore, some swans are black. This would indeed explain why Joe would say he saw a black swan, and would tend to falsify the old theory. But it seems unlikely given that millions of swans have been seen, and none were black.

Now you have a choice: lean toward the theory that swans are white, which is based on millions of observations, or lean toward the theory that some swans are black, based on one observation. This alone tends to cast doubt on Joe's theory, but we would need to offer likelier alternatives that might explain Joe's behavior. If the incidence of human error, hallucination, or lying is greater than one in millions (and I think it is), then it is reasonable to suppose that the fault lies with Joe's statement, not with the idea that swans are white.

So perhaps we investigate further and find that some farmer across the lake, unbeknownst to Joe, reports seeing a black swan in the same place at the same time. Since it is highly unlikely that two witnesses would independently see the same hallucination or make up the same lie, we might consider the lying and hallucination hypotheses falsified.

Furthermore, suppose that the only aquatic bird known to inhabit the region is the swan, and that Joe saw the bird swimming on the lake. This would cast severe doubt on the hypothesis that Joe mistook another bird for a swan, leaving us only the hypothesis that both Joe and the farmer literally cannot tell black from white.

But a defender of the white swan theory comes to the rescue, saying that the migration patterns of the Greater Curmudgeon have recently shifted because of wetland habitat destruction, and that Greater Curmudgeons have been documented only recently in areas not far from Joe and the farmer. Greater Curmudgeons are big black aquatic birds with long necks. Now we might plausibly explain why two separate witnesses saw a big black bird on a lake and thought it was a swan. The white swan theory is preserved; we have failed to falsify it...

...until scientists discover a whole flock of black swans on L'Isle des Chaussettes.

That's how it really goes in science, I'm afraid.

---
What others say about boorite!

The fact that my logic can allow me to adopt a false conclusion doesn't make it "terrible". All science takes a limited number of observations, universalizes them, and then basically prays that this observation is never falsified. For instance, Newton's physics worked tremendously well. For a long time, people thought Newtonian physics could explain everything in physics. But guess what? The theory was later falsified! More observations were made that Newtonian physics couldn't account for, and that relativity could. The fact that scientific theories often lead to false conclusions doesn't mean it uses "terrible" logic. It means that it uses falsification and trial and error to arrive at truth.

I'm afraid the logic you used is the same as mine, and subject to the same criticisms. For instance, let's say you observe a million white swans, and not one of them is black. Well, then you can infer that there is a high probability that most swans will be white. However, ten years later you observe five billion black swans. This "falsifies" your earlier inference that there is a better likelihood of seeing white swans. Thus, your conclusion proves false. False is the opposite of true.

But, of course, this is actually a GOOD THING! The fact that you can prove your observation wrong is what makes science work!

The principle of induction that you use virtually every second of your life does not produce absolute certainty, and it is contingent upon the information you currently have at hand.

Thus, my inference that all swans are white is not terrible logic. It is a perfect example of inductive inference, even though it could be false. The fact that it can be proven false is what makes it a good inference. The same thing goes with a claim of nonexistence. The fact that we can disprove that claim by an observation of the thing existing is what makes the theory falsifiable.

So I still don't understand why you think my inference was "terrible logic".

Mandingo--

One of the very quotes you used to "disprove me" was actually making the same claim as me, man. It basically said that a lack of evidence can lead someone to tentatively infer nonexistence with a little uncertainty, but that the argument couldn't be used with absolute deductive certainty. The logical error only comes into play if you think it proves this deductively.

Also, if you think it is truly a logical gaff, then you'd have to admit that science relies upon a logical gaff. Or that the inductive inferences you make every day of your life are based upon logical gaffs. And this doesn't seem like something you'd readily admit.

I'd argue that induction can also be justified pragmatically. The fact is, we use it every day, and it works. No one can do a single day without using this principle. Also, it seems to just be one of those "self-evident" principles--a lot like we couldn't justify the axioms of deductive logic--we just know them self-evidently. So it could be argued that we don't even need to justify it--it's part of our epistemological framework as rational human beings and no one could conceivably live a life that denied it.

But again, I already knew about the problem of induction. That's why I said that induction can lead to uncertain conclusions and why my argument would only be accepted by those who accept scientific methodology. If you don't accept the usage of induction, then my argument doesn't apply. But ANYONE who uses science accepts induction, as it is part of the framework. To attack induction misses the point of my argument. One of the premises is, "Given that one accepts the principle of induction..." and the conclusion is that "one should be able to infer nonexistence from a lack of evidence".

You can choose one or the other: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" or induction. If you choose the first claim, then you are no longer permitted to use inductive inferences ever, nor hold a scientific worldview. That's the force of my argument. If you use induction or treat it as a valid way of attaining knowledge, then you can't say that crap about "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"--the very fact that you treat induction as valid shows that you'd be contradicting yourself.

And you can avoid my "philosophical" argument all you want--but it only makes you look like a coward incapable of answering me. Why can I use induction to infer nonexistence based on a lack of evidence? I don't think you can answer this.

1. The principle of induction entails an inference of nonexistence from a lack of evidence.
2. The principle of induction is a valid method of reasoning.
3. Therefore, inferring nonexistence from a lack of evidence is justifiable.

4. Scientific methodology uses inductive inferences.
5. Therefore, anyone who accepts the validity of scientific methodology should also accept the above argument.

You are allowed to question any premise except the second. My argument is assuming that only those who accept the validity of induction or scientific methodology will accept the conclusions of my argument. So if you genuinely question the second premise, then I'll concede the point. However, I think it would be very foolish of anyone to question that premise, because I could show that you use inductive inferences every day of your life and that it is certainly pragmatically justified. The only people who would question it would be sophists and hardcore skeptics like Hume.

But if you do question the second premise, I'll just say you win, because I am not intelligent enough to solve the problem of induction, unfortunately. But I think I have successfully demonstrated that nonexistence can be inferred from a lack of evidence if we accept scientific methodology or induction as valid.

quote:

---

So perhaps we investigate further and find that some farmer across the lake, unbeknownst to Joe, reports seeing a black swan in the same place at the same time. Since it is highly unlikely that two witnesses would independently see the same hallucination or make up the same lie, we might consider the lying and hallucination hypotheses falsified.

---

quote:

---

I'm afraid the logic you used is the same as mine, and subject to the same criticisms. For instance, let's say you observe a million white swans, and not one of them is black. Well, then you can infer that there is a high probability that most swans will be white.

---

quote:

---

Mandingo--

One of the very quotes you used to "disprove me" was actually making the same claim as me, man. It basically said that a lack of evidence can lead someone to tentatively infer nonexistence with a little uncertainty, but that the argument couldn't be used with absolute deductive certainty. The logical error only comes into play if you think it proves this deductively.

Also, if you think it is truly a logical gaff, then you'd have to admit that science relies upon a logical gaff. Or that the inductive inferences you make every day of your life are based upon logical gaffs. And this doesn't seem like something you'd readily admit.

I'd argue that induction can also be justified pragmatically. The fact is, we use it every day, and it works. No one can do a single day without using this principle. Also, it seems to just be one of those "self-evident" principles--a lot like we couldn't justify the axioms of deductive logic--we just know them self-evidently. So it could be argued that we don't even need to justify it--it's part of our epistemological framework as rational human beings and no one could conceivably live a life that denied it.

But again, I already knew about the problem of induction. That's why I said that induction can lead to uncertain conclusions and why my argument would only be accepted by those who accept scientific methodology. If you don't accept the usage of induction, then my argument doesn't apply. But ANYONE who uses science accepts induction, as it is part of the framework. To attack induction misses the point of my argument. One of the premises is, "Given that one accepts the principle of induction..." and the conclusion is that "one should be able to infer nonexistence from a lack of evidence".

You can choose one or the other: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" or induction. If you choose the first claim, then you are no longer permitted to use inductive inferences ever, nor hold a scientific worldview. That's the force of my argument. If you use induction or treat it as a valid way of attaining knowledge, then you can't say that crap about "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"--the very fact that you treat induction as valid shows that you'd be contradicting yourself.

And you can avoid my "philosophical" argument all you want--but it only makes you look like a coward incapable of answering me. Why can I use induction to infer nonexistence based on a lack of evidence? I don't think you can answer this.

---

quote:

---

False is the opposite of true.

---

quote:

---

Therefore, when you say true is opposite to false, you are giving me an opinion I do not accept. Visa vi, you suck.

There's a coherent point in there. A lifetime supply of Jell-O jigglers to whoever finds it.

---

quote:

---

When it comes down to it, everything is an opinion.

---

tits are a scientific law

or federal maybe, can't remember

---
what if nigger meant kite

tits are a scientific law

or federal maybe, can't remember

All tits are sexy.

Manboobs are tits.

Therefore, manboobs are sexy.

---
What others say about boorite!

there are no tits in the closet

i am Tasty

therefore there are no tits in the house

especially not black ones

---
what if nigger meant kite

Google search results.

"unsexy tits": 41 hits.
"sexy tits": 595,000 hits.

Inference: 99.99% of tits are sexy.

---
What others say about boorite!