Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Watch the video.

Evidence of absence is not "We've looked here and there and have not seen anything, therefore it doesn't exist"

An evidence of absence argument would be things like "We know that rubber wasn't invented until the late 1800s/early 1900s (or whenever it was invented) and there is no examples in the archaeological record of rubber during the paleolithic, all evidence of tools made in that time period were made from stone and wood, therefore it is reasonable to conclude that rubber was not invented in the paleolithic era and therefore did not exist". That would be properly supporting the argument from lack of evidence. It also leaves open room that you could be wrong.

Your original position was

Example, there were no rubber duckies in the Paleolithic period. My test is we have not found any rubber duckies, so until we find one rubber duck, my statement is true.
Click to expand...
This is the argument from ignorance fallacy. I called it silence earlier, and that's an alternative name for it, but that can also be confused with another fallacy also named argument from silence, so as to avoid confusion I'll point this out here

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A non fallacious argument from evidence of absence includes positive evidence, as this example shows

Evidence of absence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that suggests something is missing or that it does not exist. For example:
If Alice bakes a pie, she then places the pie on her window-sill.
She did not place a pie on her window-sill.
Therefore, Alice did not bake a pie.

Since it necessarily follows from the first premise that Alice will place the pie on her window-sill every time she bakes one, upon observing that there is in fact no pie on the window-sill, we can deduce that Alice did not bake a pie. This argument is called modus tollens in propositional logic, and is written in sequent notation in this manner:
P ? Q, ?Q ? ?P

Per the traditional aphorism, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", positive evidence of this kind is distinct from a lack of evidence or ignorance[1] of that which should have been found already, had it existed.[2] In this regard Irving Copi writes:

In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.
-?Copi, Introduction to Logic (1953), p. 95
Click to expand...
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Because you're failing to grasp that it doesn't refute my statement.

It isn't necessarily fallacious, its all in how you phrase and support your claim.

Your claim as phrased was fallacious. I've demonstrated to you several ways to correct that.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
There isn't one in regards to burden of proof.

I also think you're misunderstanding what is meant by positive and negative claims, frankly.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Well that's just too bad for you then.

But you're free to be wrong, no sweat off my back.

It isn't whether a claim is positive or negative but whether it is asserted to be true that causes the claim to take on the burden of proof.

That is in regards to knowledge claims, not belief claims.

Like I said earlier, you're having a real problem with understanding the difference between knowledge claims versus belief claims, and a real misunderstanding of burden of proof. We can tack on a real misunderstanding of what positive and negative claims are.
 
Furry

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
<Gold Donor>
21,913
28,650
"There's absolutely no evidence to back my claim up, but it is completely true until you manage to disprove it." - People who believe in god and hodj
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Trying to hard to strawman.

Its funny because I haven't made any claims, actually.

And that position is literally the position Lendarios took.
 
Lendarios

Lendarios

Trump's Staff
<Gold Donor>
19,360
-17,424
What is Says the guy who linked an atheist and god discussion(twice) in reference to the non existence of rubber duckies in Paleolithic times, Alex.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
lendarios_sl said:
What is Says the guy who linked an atheist and god discussion in reference to the non existence of rubber duckies in Paleolithic times, Alex.
Click to expand...
Yes, says the guy who linked you a functionally equivalent discussion where your fallacious logic is directly equivalent to the callers Dillahunty has to hand feed the exact same explanations that I'm hand feeding to you to help them grasp why their logic is completely flawed in the exact same way your logic is.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
If the claim is "X is true" whatever X may be, be it "God exists" or "God does not exist" or "Rubber duckies existed in the Paleolithic" or "Rubber Duckies do not exist in the Paleolithic" or "I have a purple pocket yeti in my right front pocket" or "I do not have a purple pocket yeti in my right front pocket" the burden of proof is ALWAYS ON THE PERSON MAKING THE TRUTH CLAIM.

Forget positive/negative because that's causing you confusion.

The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim of absolute knowledge.

lendarios_sl said:
^
Click to expand...
I predicted you were going to make this same error in reasoning, and started creating this post and posted it seconds after you did.

Therefore I'm psychic.

Prove me wrong.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
You're clearly stuck on the fallacious layman's idea from informal logic that you can't prove a negative.

You're conflating a negative claim for existence with the statement "you can't prove a negative", which is in regards to burden shifting when someone makes a positive claim and then says "prove me wrong"

As I've made perfectly clear repeatedly.

Your shitposting is boring and pedantic at this point.

Whether the claim is a positive or negative assertion to knowledge, it is a claim to knowledge, and therefore the burden of proof falls on the person making said claim to demonstrate its validity.

That is how logic works. If you have a problem with it, take it up with Aristotle and Socrates.
 
Lendarios

Lendarios

Trump's Staff
<Gold Donor>
19,360
-17,424
hodj_sl said:
You're clearly stuck on the fallacious layman's idea from informal logic that you can't prove a negative. ... which is in regards to burden shifting when someone makes a positive claim and then says "prove me wrong"
Click to expand...
What is The I never said any of those things Alex?
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Boring and pedantic. Its clear that this is your error in thinking, hence why you keep asserting there is a difference between positive and negative claims.

There isn't, so long as the claimant is making them as an assertion to knowledge, the burden to demonstrate the truth value of said claim falls on the shoulders of the claimant.

If you have a problem with that, take it up with Aristotle and Socrates.

khalid_sl said:
Sheesh, just got back from my class and I've totally lost track of wtf is going on. Uncle.
Click to expand...
Basically, Lendarios made a claim to the non existence of something, and attempted to support it by saying he'd never seen an example of such a thing, therefore such a thing cannot exist.

And I've spent the past two pages trying to explain to him just the basics of burden of proof while he shitposts furiously.
 
Lendarios

Lendarios

Trump's Staff
<Gold Donor>
19,360
-17,424
If something can not be interacted with, tested, verified, its non existence is then logically consistent, that is the tennet of atheism actually. Also the reason why the aether theory got discarded.

Regarding the pedantic, yes I was pedantic, because you don't add anything to the discussion, you just moderate the topic and if someone makes an informal argument it triggers your OCD. I even asked you to take a position on the rubber duck argument, and you said, no, that the argument itself was fallacious, not the truth content of it. That is pedantic, arguing the form, instead of the content.

Now back to physics.

I also have a problem with negative mass.
Mass is usually defined as the amount of substance of something, the number of atoms. Now having zero atoms is understandable, now having negative number of atoms makes no sense whatsoever.
Also negative mass goes against the concept of gravity, where objects with mass pull TOWARDS each other.
It goes competently against the rest of our established frameworks. Ill put it next to the "how dragons flight physics."
 
Abefroman

Abefroman

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
12,594
11,937
tumblr_ljnqn59SXg1qclacfo1_500.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.