Re: Meaning of Zero and All, Application to archaeology

From: Steve Marcus (smarcus_spamout__at_cox.net)
Date: 01/29/05 

Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 11:39:19 -0500

"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1otiv0df02f6jgkf5560eid7h7uhhf4e13@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 05:51:35 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
> <smarcus_spamout_@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>> No. Nor could you find any refrence to it in Google and, for that
>>> matter, neither could I.
>>
>>So, Eric, I thought that you believe that absence of evidence (that
>>neither
>>you nor I could discover in Google) is not evidence of absence. Didn't
>>work
>>out to well for you in this instance, did it? Of course, as I recall the
>>thing being a beta, for all I know it circulated to maybe ten people. So
>>what?
>
> This is not a syllogism. Its a good example of a probablistic world.
> You know, the one that Philip has been promoting and I have have long
> accepted. Its not an example of the Aristotlian logic which misguided
> people misuse when they argue 'absence of evidence is evidence of
> absence'.
>
> I will spell it out:
>
> WHEN: you claim to have killfiled me
>
> BUT:
> (1) you are using a browser with no kill file capability, and
> (2) you claim you are using a plugin for that purpose except
> that
> (a)you can't remember its name.
> (b)you are not quite sure where you got it
> (c)you can't identify it with Google (or whatever)
> AND
> I couldn't:
> (a)identify it with Google (or whatever)
> (b)find anyone who had ever heard of such a plug in
>
> THEN; it probably is that you had no such plugin to give Netscape 4
> killfile capabilities.
>
> Notice I don't say that you didn't have it. In this context I say that
> you probably didn't have it.
>

Well, Eric. I guess that your "ignore" button doesn't function too well,
does. See ** below.

In case you haven't figured it out by now, I have been pointing out that one
does have to quantity the probability of things a bit when chanting "absence
of evidence is not evidence of absence" (it depends entirely upon the
strength or weakness of the proposition that you are looking for evidence to
present), and I've been doing it in sci.archaeology since 1999. You've
taken issue with it beginning at least that long ago and you continue to
blandly chant the phrase in support of the most outrageous propositions
(things that are so unlikely to be true that it boggles the logical mind)
whenever necessary to reply to posts which point out the outrageous and
unlikely nature of your little pet beliefs in all things alternative to that
which the mainstream accepts. Coupling this with your disregard for the
difference between nonacceptance resulting from lack of the weight of
evidence and nonacceptance resulting from alleged bigotry of the mainstream
in support of the the currently accepted paradigm, you are one of the most
dangerous posters in the sci.archaeology.

In the posts on this thread which you claimed to have ignored because my
argument was "too long", (posted in response to *you* having asked *me*
which part of your agreement with Tedd Jacobs' comment that there is no
evidence for against ET UFOs I disagreed with), I pointed out that in the
case of extra-terrestrial UFOs, the proposition that they exist is a weak
one, just slightly stronger than the proverbial gust of wind that will come
along and loft you to safety after you jump off the Brooklyn Bridge.
Because there *is* no evidence, historically, pre-historically, or currently
to support the existence of UFOs, and thee is lots of logic based upon the
current state of knowledge in which light speed seems to be a limitation on
how fast one can travel, the size of universe, the probability that
intelligent life would arise "out there", likelihood that it would find its
way through the vastness to our little planet if it did arise), it hugely
unlikely that the UFOs that we see are evidence of ET visitations.

So don't come around here with your probabilities BS. I've forgotten more
about that (as has Philip Deiteker) than you will ever understand or know.

I'll agree with all of your facts stated above regarding that plug-in. At
the time, it pissed me off greatly that I couldn't point to a name, but
surprised me not at all that there was no evidence for it in Google, etc,
since by that time, 32-bit technology was a done thing, 16-bit Netscape was
a bit of an anachronism, and the market for such a plug-in would have been
small. I felt no need to disclose at the time that the thing was probably a
beta, because of where I would have gotten the beta, why the beta existed,
and my feeling that explaining *that* would have disclosed too much
information of a personal nature. Nevertheless, the plug-in existed, and
worked reasonably well. And at the time, you did quite a bit more than
imply that it was "likely" that I didn't have such a plug-in. You
essentially claimed that I was lying. You were, however, wrong.

**Now, on the matter of you having me "on ignore", I think my claim that you
were, and are lying about that, is quite a bit stronger, don't you? You can
hardly be "ignoring" someone's posts if you are responding to them; while
you frequently display an inability to read other's posts for understanding,
even you must read and understand a bit if you undertake to post a response.

That disposed up, let's read your response to my comments that on the
evidence, it is clearly indicated (but not proven) that ET UFOs don't exist.
Alternatively, retract your "quite correct" agreement with Tedd Jacobs'
statement that it's as likely they do as they don't. Since you aren't
"ignoring" my posts as the word "ignoring" is understood by speakers of the
English language, a failure to reply will imply that you agree with my
position on the matter.
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
>
Steve 

-- 
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either.  This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view.  To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3
Quantcast