soc.culture.iraq

Mavisbeacon wrote:
> "Einar" wrote in message
> news: @ ...
>
> Mavisbeacon wrote:
> > "Einar" wrote in message
> > news: @ ...
> >
> > EFill4Zaggin wrote:
> > > On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 13:25:23 -0700, Einar wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, just as the absence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran means
> > > that it's simply well-hidden from the IAEA. It's the impossible task
> > > of proving a negative. Classic neocon horseshit trickery.
> >
> > Let=B4s imagine variable X. It=B4s true about X it can neither be proven
> > to exist, with 100% certainty, nor can it be proven not to exist, with
> > 100% certainty.
> >
> > This is the case about the Iranian nuclear programme. It can neither
> > be proven nor disproven that they are secretly intending to make a
> > nuclear bomb.
> > [snip]
> >
> > You fall into the fallacy of proving a negative! One provides evidence =
to
> > prove the positive case.
> > Also you shift the burden!
> > Based on your thesis it is as equal a burden to show unicorns do NOT
> > exist
> > or the Astrology does NOT work as it is for those who believe in unicor=
ns
> > or
> > astrology.
> >
> >
> > In fact in addition if it can't be shown to be supportable by evidence
> > then
> > it isn't a scientific claim!
> >
> > finally there's the question of fair trials and jurisprudence. The
> > negative
> > is assumed . people are assumed NOT guilty and guilt must be proved!=
It
> > is plainly ridiculous to claim that one can assume guilt just because
> > innocence cant be proven to 100 per cent certainty. Innocence does not
> > have
> > to be . It is assumed 100 per cent true!
>
> You are wrong about that. I simply didn=B4t enter into the discussion of
> probabilities or improbabilites. Therefore I made none of the
> assumptions you are suggesting I made.
>
> [quote=3DMavis Beacon}
> Please fix your parser. it ius not clear whom youare quoting.
>
> Above you state
> [quote=3DEinar]
> it can neither be proven
> to exist, with 100% certainty, nor can it be proven not to exist, with
> 100% certainty.
> [end einar]
>
> Referring to a percentageof certainty or uncertainty IS a discussion of
> probabilities!
> [end beacon]
>
> [qoute]
> While neither assumption about X may be provable, it may be possible
> to argue a case based on direct/indirect evidence or probabilites,
> that one assumption has more strength so to speak behind it than the
> other. However, I didn=B4t discuss the matter that far.
> [end einar]
>
> You referred to probabality and I directed you as far as I know to the
> fallacies of "shifting the burden" and "proving a negative". Please look =
up
> "logical fallacy"and
> those two fallacies.
>
>
> [quote]
> Interesting that you talk about unicorns and astrology, I wonder why
> you didn=B4t mentione santa clause or an orbiting teapot to boot.
> [end einar]
>
> I was referring to "proving a negative". Once a counter example is given =
it
> is not necessary to list all counter examples.
> Einar

I didn=B4t enter into the probabilities that one might be more likelly
than the other, not those probabilities.

My statement that neither can be proven with 100% certainty not to be
true is an entirelly a correct statement.

There is no logical fallacy in this.

Einar