Re: New subjectline: Valid and invalid arguments; former: Cocaine in ancient Egypt?

From: Eric Stevens (eric.stevens_at_sum.co.nz)
Date: 01/21/05 

Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 17:42:32 +1300

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:07:31 -0700, "Tedd Jacobs"
<Jacobs@mail.boisestate.edu> wrote:

>
>"I.E_Johansson" wrote...
>>
>> "Doug Weller" <dweller@ramtops.removethisdemon.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
>> news:dgovu0tevvdikh1rcm4pgqv3s8frji7hnc@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:01:57 GMT, in sci.archaeology, Alan Crozier wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >Martyn is blatantly ignoring the old dictum "Absence of evidence is not
>>> >evidence of absence" and drawing a fallacious conclusion from an
>> argumentum
>>> >ex silentio. Consider how little has actually survived from ancient
>> Egypt, a
>>> >tiny fraction of all the evidence that may once have existed. It is
>>> >wrong
>> to
>>> >infer from this absence of evidence that, during the several millennia
>>> >of
>>> >Egyptian history, there was no contact at all with other parts of the
>> world,
>>> >or indeed the universe.
>>>
>>> I've never understood that 'old dictum'.
>>> Absence of evidence is in fact evidence of absence. Not proof, but
>>> evidence of the probability of absence. And how likely that is depends
>>> upon the context.
>>
>> No Doug,
>> you are completely wrong here.
>[...]
>
>there is an absence of evidence that individual 'A' has an intellect, thus
>we have evidence that individual 'A' has no intellect.

You have no evidence that my nextdoor neighbour has an intellect. Does
that mean that my next door neighbour has no intellect?

I know that Bishop Berkely would argue that that is the case as far as
he is concerned.
>
>how right you are.
>
>

Eric Stevens