Jump to content
LL Medico Diapers and More Bambino Diapers - ABDL Diaper Store

Argument Question


Recommended Posts

I have a bit of a question me and my friends were arguing about.......
Is a lack of evidence somthing exists, evidence it doesnt? I think thats ridiculous but it keeps becoming an argument. Maybe becouse it touchs apon personal beliefs? Any thoughts on this?

Link to comment

No, the lack of evidence for something is not evidence that it doesn't exist. Because we are not omnipresent, we can't be everywhere in the universe at once and therefore it is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist.

Now, whether or not something exists in your particular environment is a different matter. Dare I ask what this is about?

Link to comment

Yes it is as long as it is a testable hypothesis. If it is not testable, if it cannot be measured, then it is a philosophy question and evidence is either irrelevant or non existent. Of course, that is not to say that you can always be right even if it is testable.

Link to comment

NO. A n absence of evidence is not evidence of absence: it is PROOF of it

To understand this, follow this scenario. You are on trial for your life and the Prosecutor uses that phrase and the jury buys it. What do you feel and How come?

It is evidence that connects a hypothesis to the real world. Hence such terms as "paper trail" and "smoking gun". Did you ever play "Clue"?

That bit of nonsense is no more than an admission that the person doesn't have the goods and is trying to browbeat, trick or bully you into buying the half-baked bread

It is the Fallacy of Trying to Shift the Bruden of Proof and is deliberate. In logic and science. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim

The issue of omniscience is a dodge, and is irrelevant. You cannot know what is not there to know, even if you were omniscient. It is the evidence that is the trail to that knowledge. So if you were omniscient you would have the evidence and be able to present it. if anything, not being omniscient makes evidence, being the trail to the thing you are seeking to show, even more vital since the evidence would be the rungs of the ladder you would climb to get to the state of knowledge of the thing in question

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment

What is worse is that, as shown by the clever arrangement, it is a deliberate and intentional logical fallacy. The only other one is the Ad Hominem type fallacy

The actual parttern is this "factual premises and valid reasoning yield true conclusions". Hence you VERIFY your premises. Prmeises are the data you process, so you want to make sure that what you claim exists actually does. Facts are neither true nor false, a claimed fact either exists or it does not. Evidence is the set of facts you assemble by way of valid reasoning to come to a conclusion that, if the evidence is real and your premises are, therefore, factual, and the reasoning is valid, barring some unknown, usually a missed fact, the conclusion will be true

Now, here is how that works: A couple of years ago, someone once said I am a Sissy, but did not present any evidence; something that would be true of Sissy's but not of Little Girls. Shared characterisitics, such as clothes and girlish accessories do not count and even similar clothes, like dresses differ since Sissy's are far more frilly and we, at age 5 do not wear bras, a lady would not have to beat me into submission to put a tiara on me and my "main squeeze" is a dolly (even for some LG's a doll is just an accessory rhather than someone for whom she has any feeling). Most of the time at home I am in skirts or babydolls; nor did he even present a line of argumentation, despite the fact that I requested one: "How do you know?". NO CASE and he loses by default. Go to the nightlight thread. If I were a Sissy, would the name be "Christine" or "Chriss(ie, y)"?

Link to comment

That. 

If current science and technology doesn't allow gathering evidence of something, than that something is not disproven - what it is is meaningless, and will remain meaningless despite any buts, maybes and what ifs, until there's a breakthrough in method of reliable collection of data. 

Link to comment

Since the porsitive MUST be proven, then lack of evidennce means the negative is true, Full stop; end of story (because there is  no story for the positive to tell). The negative is accepted unconditionally. If not yes, then no. there is no "middle ground". Whether or not that changes in the future is not for now, which is when things exist. The whole argument to allow abortion was that since the "pro-life" side could not prove that before the 24th week, the fetus was a living thing, but WAS potentially alive if left to continue, the actual life (the would-be mother) took absolute, 100% precedence over the potential life, and in logic, the actual has over 100% precedence over the potential because the potential does not yet exist. So the "pro life" had to resort to an argument based on religious Supernaturalism, which, to grant would violate the First Amendment's no Establishment clause

All argument uses the present as the temporal frame of reference because that is what exists. Did Wimpy every pay that guy Tuesday for the hamburger today? In logic,  "disprove" is not used the term is "refuted". "Disprove" is just a colloquialism made of "prove" and a negative prefixs, like "disconnect". The affirmative side of the argument is the offense and the negative is the defense

In addition to evidence, the real world items used as premises, you need valid reasoning. Thus you can have the evidence and still lose the case through inept presentation and argument. If either evidence or valid reason is missing. the defense wins outright; no evidence, no case; c'est fini, game over, full stop, end of story: However you say it

If you start to go into the "could be"s; and who has not heard the mocking "oh yeah could'a, would'a should'a"; and "Well things can change" or any of the "yes, but..." scenarioos you are simply stalling for time and trying to bring it into overtime after you have lost the game by 12 touchdowns. The only place left to go is into tinfoil hat territory

Link to comment
On 12/15/2018 at 8:51 PM, Little Christine said:

Since the porsitive MUST be proven, then lack of evidennce means the negative is true,

This concept is in error. A lack of evidence often means that the thing in question is true, but nobody yet knows about it. A simple example is early perople's belief that thunder was caused by "gods" being angry. They found ways to prove those beliefs which stayed in place until the true cause of thunder (rapid expansion of air) became known and provable. Those who believed otherwise could not prove their point for ages. Thunder did not change- it was always caused by the expansion of air, only the data and knowledge involved changed. Those who disbelieved the "proven" gods theory were always correct in their negative opinion- it was only that they couldn't yet offer proof because it didn't exist at that point.

There are many classical examples of this process showing that the lack of evidence does not automatically imply a negative result. There are more that two possible results to a question of provability. It is when you try to force the process by allowing only two answers that things go astray.

Bettypooh

Link to comment

How can a lack of evidence mean something is true?

For one thinkg, how could you know it were true with no real-world signs to point the way? You would not, and any "intuitive" ideas would just be a sign of egocentrism in psychology, Solopsism in philosophy; specifically Epistemology (what do I know and how do I know it), and in common speech being self-absorbed. Just because you can make it up in your head does not make it real

"Truth" means a correct identfiication of a fact of reality. "factual premises and valid reasoning yield true conclusions" evidence is the premises to which you apply valid reasoning. You "verify" your facts. i.e. make sure that you are correct with regard to them, and you "validate" your reasoning, which is what you learn in logic. No factual premises, no case: No evidence = no factual premises to apply reason, valid or otherwise; see THE GOSTAK DISTIMS THE DOSHES, to. Therefore no evidence no case. How could it be otherwise? The debate is over. the negative, or defense MUST by nature, win. Now you may find evidence later on, but then you open a new debate with a new case. But you still need the evidence. We can come up with millions of things a week for which there is no evidence. Does the lack of evidence make them true or real? NOW I am sweating bullets. I just realized there is no evidence for the existence of Balfogs or the MIdgard Serpent or Sauron. Also, if the lack of evidence makes a thing true, then its opposite, the presence of evidence must make it false. You mean Trump, who we know to be a philandering liar, really IS the right man to be President? Now I am going to be sick. Or how about the priests who regularly molested children. the presence of the mountains of evidence means they must be innocent and should go free

Net result, all lies are true and all truth is lies. Holy 1984; Batman!

Consider, you are on trial for child molestation, the prosecutor does not present any evidence and says. "there is no evidence, but the lack of evidence makes the charges true and therefore the defendant guilty", and the jury buys it. Where does that leave you? Would that scenario take place in a modern courtroom or the dungeon of the Spanish Inquisition? Or a Soviet or Nazi courtroom?

Link to comment

A claim can either be true or false. 

To prove that it's true, and thereby have anyone believe it, evidence is needed (unless it's a religious claim of course, in which case a claim seems to be good enough for most people in the world, but I digress)

When there's a lack of evidence it only means the claim cannot be proven to be true and we're required to take the default position, which is not accepting the claim. 

If someone is accused of a crime and not enough evidence is found to prove him guilty, the claim of his guilt is not accepted by the court (hopefully). Doesn't mean he absolutely didn't do it; for all we know, he may have, but the thing is we don't know, and as such have to take the default position (innocent until proven guilty). The innocence is not a proven thing, it's a presumed thing. Reason for that logic (presumption of innocence & in dubio pro reo) is that if everyone had to prove their innocence, instead of it being a presumed thing, no one would have time to do anything else. 

Same logic applies to any other claim and I'm seriously done with this thread because I don't think I can put it more plain and simple, and if this still doesn't work, well... 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...