The 10 Logic Commandments ...

1.61803 writes:

quote:

---

13. Arguments from incredulity shall be dismissed as claptrap.
example: Saying there is no such thing as big foot because the body of one has never been produced.

---

Logical error: Shifting the burden of proof.It is the responsibility of the one making the claim to provide evidence to justify it, not the other way around. The Null Hypothesis still stands: The Null Hypothesis is accepted as true until evidence is provided to justify its rejection.I don't have to prove that 2 + 2 = 4 in order to show that they don't equal 5.

quote:

---

Fallacy: "argument from ignorance". It is impossible to simultaneously search every forest on Earth; therefore the possibility that a big foot exist can not be disproved.

---

Incorrect. The fact that one particular method of investigation may be difficult does not make it impossible nor does that method need to be the only way to demonstrate the fallacy of the claim.If the established characteristics of the claim lead to a contradiction, that necessarily indicates the claim to be false. While a brute force method of exhaustion would be sufficient, it is not necessary.

Hi Rrhain,
Heh, I was wondering when this would be picked apart.
I was being provocative on purpose. Yes your right I agree, "the philosophic burden of proof."So I will make a claim anyway.Claim...Bigfoot may exist.Counter claimer statement (1)...uh no, are you crazy? bigfoot absolutely does not exist because there hasn't been any scientific evidence produced of it's existence.Claimer " Well the likely hood of a bigfoot existing somewhere in the worlds jungles or forest is possible and the fact that one has yet to be discovered by scientist does not mean it does not exist.Counter claimer..."Please see statement (1) Yes. Each party being guilty of a argument from ignorance. But the party making the claim does have the burden of proof and sits in the illogical pool of fallaciousness. However in my opinion, the more plausible the claim the more robust the counter evidence from the denier should be and the more he/she will wade in that same pool.Example: Claim made in 1937Claim " I think Coelocatanths may still be extant."Counter claimer statement (1)...uh no, are you crazy? bigfoot absolutely does not exist because there hasn't been any scientific evidence produced of it's existence.

Curiously I think there is a world of difference between "may exist" and "does exist" -- the former is open-minded and skeptical while the second lacks skepticism. Again, there is a world of difference between "not likely to exist" and "absolutely does not exist" -- the former allows for scientific tentativity and open-mindedness that is lacking in the latter.And I would say that the more adamant\absolute a claim is the more you need evidence to support it.Enjoy

Hi RAZD.Of course your right. I should of put a question mark behind the title.Extraordinary claims require..."But Skully my dear the truth is out there!!!"

1.61803 responds to me:

quote:

---

Claim...Bigfoot may exist.

---

Let's stop you right there before you continue with your logical error of strawman.Define "Bigfoot."

quote:

---

Each party being guilty of a argument from ignorance.

---

Logical error: Shifting the burden of proof. It is up to the one making the claim to define terms, not the other way around. Until you define what it is you are talking about, any claims to its existence are necessarily null.Things without definition do not exist.Note, this is not a question of merely being unaware of the definition. That something is difficult to define or unknown does not mean it doesn't exist. This is an existential claim: If there is no definition to be had no matter what, then it cannot exist.If you cannot define what you mean by "Bigfoot," then the Null Hypothesis still stands: It does not exist. Until you provide evidence to the contrary (starting with a definition), even being "agnostic" about it is a logical error.

quote:

---

However in my opinion, the more plausible the claim the more robust the counter evidence from the denier should be and the more he/she will wade in that same pool.

---

Indeed: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But you still haven't defined what it is you're talking about, so your insistence upon "plausibility" is trivially shown to be false.You seem to be dancing around the argument that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," but that is also a fallacy: If a particular phenomenon leaves a trace under certain conditions, then if there is an absence of that trace under the conditions, then we can logically conclude that the phenomenon does not exist.This is known as the contrapositive: Given an implication, reverse the subjects and negate both:If X, then Y.
~Y, therefore ~X.The contrapositive of a true statement is always true. Note that it doesn't matter if other things might also lead to Y. The implication is that X leads to Y. If there is no Y, then there can be no X since X results in Y.

Hello Rrhain,
Big foot I suppose is a bipedal animal that is covered with hair and has a ape like appearance that has yet to be discovered.I myself am skeptical of it's existence. I used big foot knowing it would not fly.I think that it is unlikely it exist because a large bipedal ape like creature such as big foot would leave a fossil record, bones, dna ,
something.I also agree that claims should include specific definitions which is a reasonable thing to do anytime one is having such discussions.What I do not agree with is that it is logical to rule out something based on the fact that it is yet to be discovered.As in my previous example and yes a far cry from big foot.The Coelacanth was considered extinct until one was caught in 1938.Do you believe Intelligent extraterrestrial life exist?
Is it logical to dismiss the possibility?If the claim that intelligent extraterrestrial life may exist somewhere in the universe.
Would absence of evidence mean evidence of absence in this case?Before you accuse me of "shifting the goal post" I already admit I did.

1.61803 responds to me:

quote:

---

Big foot I suppose is a bipedal animal that is covered with hair and has a ape like appearance that has yet to be discovered.

---

So what would happen if it is discovered? If the definition of Bigfoot is that it is undiscovered, then it will always remain in the realm of impossibility.And how does one distinguish this from ay other "bipedal animal that is covered with hair and has an ape-like appearance"? There are many of them. Humans, for example, fit your definition. Your definition does not uniquely identify that which you are claiming exists.

quote:

---

The Coelacanth was considered extinct until one was caught in 1938.

---

You do understand the difference between "extinct" and "doesn't exist," yes? One was known to have existed and the other has never been demonstrated to exist ever.And the coelacanths we see today are not the same as the fossils we have. What would that say about any "Bigfoot" that might exist? Evolution doesn't stop.

quote:

---

Do you believe Intelligent extraterrestrial life exist?

---

"Believe" isn't quite the word I'd use. I think that the universe is big enough that the idea of us being the only "intelligent" (a difficult definition) species in the entirety of the universe is vanishingly small. But, that's based upon my understanding of biology and cosmology which I do not claim to be perfect.

quote:

---

Is it logical to dismiss the possibility?

---

Given what we know about biology and cosmology, coupled with the fact that we have an example of intelligent life in the universe, we know that there is a non-zero probability of it happening a second time.

quote:

---

Would absence of evidence mean evidence of absence in this case?

---

But we do have evidence. We exist. And there is a huge universe out there we have observed that indicates there are a huge number of planets in habitable zones. Thus, there is a non-zero probability that we aren't alone.Isolated, but not alone.