Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: You dare to question the gods of scientism?

Expand Messages
  • Ruby Honey
    ... Leave it to you to of course go there when told not to, provide a link -- how long did it take you to dig this out? -- and say something stupid like
    Message 1 of 41 , Apr 20, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com, thevirtualgreek <no_reply@y...> wrote:
      > --- In debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com, "Ruby Honey"
      > <rubyhoney97402@y...> wrote:
      > > > Well, I'm just assuming it's difficult for art critics to keep a
      > > > straight face while looking at some of the stuff that passes for
      > art.
      > > > I'm willing to stand corrected if that's not the case. ;-)
      > > >
      > > > ~~Paul
      > >
      > > do everyone a favor and don't even go there. You enough on your
      > hands what with being a shill for JREF and
      > > other debunking organziations.
      >
      > Okay, I'll operate under the assumption that all modern art is really
      > good stuff.
      >
      > http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
      >
      > ~~ Paul

      Leave it to you to of course "go there" when told not to, provide a link -- how long did it take you to dig this
      out? -- and say something stupid like "Okay, I'll operate under the assumption that all modern art is really
      > good stuff." ....

      WHAT is your point? Not that I care. Please, don't answer that. (but of course you will anyway)

      ~ ruby
    • thevirtualgreek
      ... a ... But no one makes claims like this. They say there are pink unicorns or there are transdimensional pink unicorns. Such claims are unfalsifiable.
      Message 41 of 41 , Apr 29, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com, "raptor_omicron"
        <raptor_omicron@y...> wrote:
        > "Careful. You aren't proving that it is impossible for there to be
        a
        > pink unicorn in my basement, logically speaking. You're only
        > demonstrating empirically that there is no pink unicorn there now."
        >
        > Yes but the claim implies that there is a pink unicorn in the
        > basement AND IT REMAINS THERE.

        But no one makes claims like this. They say "there are pink unicorns"
        or "there are transdimensional pink unicorns." Such claims are
        unfalsifiable. In fact, paranormal researchers studiously avoid
        making narrow-scope claims like yours, because then one CAN falsify
        them. For example, no one would claim that Uri Geller can bend spoons
        in my bedroom on Tuesdays, because then I can set up a simple test.

        > "First of all, no reasonable person says that the burden of proof
        is
        > on the claimant."
        >
        > If no reasonable person says that, then why did you say it a few
        > posts ago?

        Please don't take what I say out of context. I explained who has the
        burden of proof: those who have the ability to produce evidence one
        way or the other. If you have a specific claim to discuss, let's do
        that, because talking about the general case makes it too easy to
        distort each other's statements. For which claim did I lay the burden
        of proof on the claimant?

        > "Indeed, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. However, lack of
        > evidence one way or the other does not leave the probability at
        > 50/50. If you want to calculate a probability, you have a large and
        > squirrely task ahead of you that involves many related fields of
        > knowledge."
        >
        > TOTAL lack of evidence either way would leave the probability at
        > 50/50. Anything that would change this probability is evidence.

        Agreed, but there is never total lack of evidence. If there was total
        lack of evidence for a phenomenon, you wouldn't know about it.

        ~~ Paul
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.