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

From: I.E_Johansson (inger_e.xjohansson_at_telia.xcom)
Date: 01/21/05 

Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 06:47:27 GMT

Doug,
You can't use a dictionary to tell you what the Old Greeks knew and what
every serious scholar has to have learnt. You see:
Absence of evidence isn't the same as evidence of absence!
That has nothing what so ever to do with this or that language's
dictionaries. This is basic knowledge for every single scholar. It's one of
the first things you learn reading philosophy and one of the first facts you
have to go thru showing yourself to have understand when studying Methods of
Science. No matter which subject no matter where and when.

If you can't understand this, then it's easy to understand why you haven't
been able to present valid arguments in many of the questions discussed
here.

There are a lot of theories/thesis and facts which can't be proven true. But
many of those can be falsified since it only takes one single example of the
kind which the theory/thesis or 'fact' say isn't true. Following is taking
this to next level.

You can only ask the questions you know might be asked to any kind of given
strata, observation, documentation and or artifacts found. That's simple.
But how can you be sure that what you observe is what's really there? You
can't. Let's take the old traditional chair from the classes of Philosophy.
The tutor/teacher puts a chair in front of you and ask: what's this? you
rise your hand and answer: a chair. The tutor/teacher asks: How do you know?
You continue I know that. The tutor/teacher continue Why and how can you
prove it? You say 'If I can sit in it and it's not a sofa and not an
armchair, then it's a chair. The tutor/teacher continue: That's not a proof
of what it is, it's only a proof that you have used things alike as a chair.
In other word you are using your own, but limited, experience.
How can you be sure that your experience is the only way to interpret what
you see? You can't. You can only relate to what you have learnt either
oraly, from written words or your own experience. That's nothing that say
that you are correct.
How can you even be sure that what you see exists?
and so on. I do hope you have had the pleasure of having a good
philosoph-teacher. Every scholar there is ought to have had one. If you
aren't aware of the basic factors to form a valid argument in a discussion,
it's then you try to pick on details which aren't important at all to the
discussion.

In other word as often been the case from several here who written Ad
Hominem or personal attacks or used namecalling. It's a typical phenomena of
those who can't form an argument or a contra-argument trying to dismiss a
question either by picking on unimportant details, trying to lean to
circle-proofs and or stalking to stop valid arguments from being discussed.

In the specific case we are discussing, that absence of evidence never ever
can be an evidence of absence, you are trying to change subject to what you
from your experience can find from texts in English dictionary's and
encyclopedia. The world has seen many languages, but that doesn't matter
when it comes to what's in this or that work and or book. You can't know
anything what so ever about what's in an unexcavated area 5 meters from your
own house, it's even more limited chances for you to know what's in an
unexcatvated field you never seen yourself.

You may believe that while field A and field C hasn't shown any artifacts of
X-type then it's unlikely that field B in between the others can have one.
Believing isn't knowing.

As my teacher used to say in discussion like this: Believe you can do in the
church, when it comes to science you either know for sure or you don't. If
you haven't tested or searched you definitely can't say you know. No matter
what.
Thus you can't use the argument that absence of evidence can be used to
prove anything but that you haven't been able to form question or to do
deeper studies to form a valid evidence. All you have done is shown that you
don't know theories of science by heart.

Inger E

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Another mass shooting in a gun-free zone
    ... underlying basic principle that makes it all "go", ... I'll believe Y. You have no evidence, just a desire that it be so. ... So you adhere to the belief that "absence of evidence is evidence of ... the way most of the world operates from Joe who scoffs at speed laws ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: Another mass shooting in a gun-free zone
    ... I'll believe Y. You have no evidence, just a desire that it be so. ... that postulated for electrons. ... So you adhere to the belief that "absence of evidence is evidence of ... reasons, we can conclude lack of existence. ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: LV graciously refuses Jims bet
    ... "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", ... trigger that invasion by sending aid to anti-communist factions in Afghanistan who toppled the pro-Soviet govt., how did he think they would react to that? ... All the Neocon cruft was just electoral, ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
  • Re: Another mass shooting in a gun-free zone
    ... I'll believe Y. You have no evidence, just a desire that it be so. ... that postulated for electrons. ... So you adhere to the belief that "absence of evidence is evidence of ... simplest explanation which contains all data is most useful, ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: Another mass shooting in a gun-free zone
    ... I'll believe Y. You have no evidence, just a desire that it be so. ... Electrons may not in fact exist. ... So you adhere to the belief that "absence of evidence is evidence of ... randomness exists anything can be random. ...
    (misc.writing)