Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(March 10, 2017 at 1:21 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: How does changing it to some person; change the logic involved.
I just explained how.
The question that I am talking about is "does an entity with this specific characteristic exist?". The question that you posited was "does this existent entity have this specific characteristic?". They are not equivalent.
No... same question, although I used an example of something that is existent, to show the flawed logic. (Assuming that I exist and I'm not just random noise in the server, which would be kind of absurd) I find that assuming the answer in your premise, is generally frowned upon and not proper thinking. If the logic doesn't work with something you know the answer to, then it doesn't work period.
Nonpareil Wrote:The question that I am talking about is "does an entity with this specific characteristic exist?". The question that you posited was "does this existent entity have this specific characteristic?". They are not equivalent.
No... same question
No, Road. They are different questions. You can see that they are different questions by reading them.
You can also see that they are different questions by identifying that, given the same data set, they will return different answers. Given that a man named RoadRunner79 exists, but is not the same person that went streaking through Shanghai at noon today, the answer to "is there someone who went streaking through Shanghai at noon today?" is "yes", while the answer to "did RoadRunner79 go streaking through Shanghai at noon today?" is "no".
This is not complicated.
"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
(March 10, 2017 at 12:08 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: No... same question
No, Road. They are different questions. You can see that they are different questions by reading them.
You can also see that they are different questions by identifying that, given the same data set, they will return different answers. Given that a man named RoadRunner79 exists, but is not the same person that went streaking through Shanghai at noon today, the answer to "is there someone who went streaking through Shanghai at noon today?" is "yes", while the answer to "did RoadRunner79 go streaking through Shanghai at noon today?" is "no".
This is not complicated.
Different answers do not indicate a different question. The logic will follow if valid either way with the same premises. You can insert equivalent variables, for the data if you like, the conclusion will still follow in the same manner.
Your conclusions and explanations also seem to be inconsistent. Going from the general (anyone) to the specific (particular someone) gives different answers to the same premise.
Take the following syllogism
Subject X is claimed to have done action Y.
Y may either be true or false.
There are a couple of conclusion one can make from this depending on if Y is true or false. X does not exist is not one of them.
(March 10, 2017 at 1:24 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Different answers do not indicate a different question.
Yes, they do, Road. That's what it means to be a different question.
(March 10, 2017 at 1:24 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: The logic will follow if valid either way with the same premises. You can insert equivalent variables, for the data if you like, the conclusion will still follow in the same manner.
I just did that.
You get different answers.
Because they are not the same question.
(March 10, 2017 at 1:24 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Your conclusions and explanations also seem to be inconsistent. Going from the general (anyone) to the specific (particular someone) gives different answers to the same premise.
Because I am not asking the question that you think I am.
(March 10, 2017 at 1:24 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Take the following syllogism
Subject X is claimed to have done action Y.
Y may either be true or false.
There are a couple of conclusion one can make from this depending on if Y is true or false. X does not exist is not one of them.
Of course it isn't.
But that isn't the question I'm asking.
"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
(March 10, 2017 at 3:17 pm)irontiger Wrote: In another backyard there was ant and human. Except for a sensation that something is close by, the ant is so small and has limited physical capabilities and senses to recognize a human as we see it and will never able to do so, therefore "evidence" will never present itself to that ant.
Except for the whole fact that the ant can interact with the human and therefore has evidence of its existence, you mean.
"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
(March 10, 2017 at 1:24 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Different answers do not indicate a different question.
Yes, they do, Road. That's what it means to be a different question.
(March 10, 2017 at 1:24 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: The logic will follow if valid either way with the same premises. You can insert equivalent variables, for the data if you like, the conclusion will still follow in the same manner.
I just did that.
You get different answers.
Because they are not the same question.
(March 10, 2017 at 1:24 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Your conclusions and explanations also seem to be inconsistent. Going from the general (anyone) to the specific (particular someone) gives different answers to the same premise.
Because I am not asking the question that you think I am.
(March 10, 2017 at 1:24 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Take the following syllogism
Subject X is claimed to have done action Y.
Y may either be true or false.
There are a couple of conclusion one can make from this depending on if Y is true or false. X does not exist is not one of them.
Of course it isn't.
But that isn't the question I'm asking.
How does the answer change the question?
Perhaps you should lay your argument out again if I am mis-understanding. Also, if I'm not mistaken, you reasons for your conclusion, not asking a question.
(March 10, 2017 at 3:32 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: How does the answer change the question?
The answer does not change the question. But if you have the same data set for both questions, and get two different answers, then you are necessarily asking two different questions.
"Did someone go streaking through Shanghai at noon today?" is not equivalent to "Did RoadRunner79 go streaking through Shanghai at noon today?". Even when the answer to the first is "yes", the answer to the second can still be "no", because they are different questions.
(March 10, 2017 at 3:32 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Perhaps you should lay your argument out again if I am mis-understanding.
It's very simple. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence, when the absence is present where the evidence would have to be.
If someone claims that there is an elephant in my living room, and we go into the living room and find no elephant, we have proven that there is no elephant in my living room. In the same way, if someone claims that a god exists that flooded the world for forty days, and we establish that the world was never flooded for forty days, we have proven that the hypothetical god does not exist. Even if another deity is later shown to exist, our conclusion that the proposed god does not would still be valid.
Think of it this way. We know that Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter is a work of fiction. We know that there was never a president that fought vampires during the Civil War. We know that the fictional main character of this book never existed. The fact that he was based on a real historical figure does not change that.
(March 10, 2017 at 3:32 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Also, if I'm not mistaken, you reasons for your conclusion, not asking a question.
This does not parse.
"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
(March 10, 2017 at 3:32 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: How does the answer change the question?
The answer does not change the question. But if you have the same data set for both questions, and get two different answers, then you are necessarily asking two different questions.
"Did someone go streaking through Shanghai at noon today?" is not equivalent to "Did RoadRunner79 go streaking through Shanghai at noon today?". Even when the answer to the first is "yes", the answer to the second can still be "no", because they are different questions.
(March 10, 2017 at 3:32 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Perhaps you should lay your argument out again if I am mis-understanding.
It's very simple. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence, when the absence is present where the evidence would have to be.
If someone claims that there is an elephant in my living room, and we go into the living room and find no elephant, we have proven that there is no elephant in my living room. In the same way, if someone claims that a god exists that flooded the world for forty days, and we establish that the world was never flooded for forty days, we have proven that the hypothetical god does not exist. Even if another deity is later shown to exist, our conclusion that the proposed god does not would still be valid.
Think of it this way. We know that Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter is a work of fiction. We know that there was never a president that fought vampires during the Civil War. We know that the fictional main character of this book never existed. The fact that he was based on a real historical figure does not change that.
(March 10, 2017 at 3:32 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Also, if I'm not mistaken, you reasons for your conclusion, not asking a question.
This does not parse.
I'm sorry, but at best you have demonstrated that the world wasn't flooded. It doesn't follow that the hypothetical god in the claim does not exist.
To Test this.
If I claim that a Nonpareil exists that flooded the world in forty days, and we establish that the world was never flooded for forty days. I have just proven that you do not exist.
Do you agree with the conclusion, that you do not exist?
March 10, 2017 at 4:05 pm (This post was last modified: March 10, 2017 at 4:05 pm by Mister Agenda.)
irontiger Wrote: In another backyard there was ant and human. Except for a sensation that something is close by, the ant is so small and has limited physical capabilities and senses to recognize a human as we see it and will never able to do so, therefore "evidence" will never present itself to that ant. The ant will then conclude that humans do not exist. Based on Neil Degrasse Tyson logic the ant is also right.
The most reasonable conclusion based on the evidence that you have is not necessarily the right one. The ant is justified in requesting more information before assenting to the proposition that humans are real. To make this really analogous, the one trying to convince the first ant is another ant, which leads one to wonder how that ant established that humans are real. Maybe it followed Drich's advice and A/S/Ked.
(March 10, 2017 at 4:02 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I'm sorry, but at best you have demonstrated that the world wasn't flooded. It doesn't follow that the hypothetical god in the claim does not exist.
To Test this.
If I claim that a Nonpareil exists that flooded the world in forty days, and we establish that the world was never flooded for forty days. I have just proven that you do not exist.
Do you agree with the conclusion, that you do not exist?
No. But, again, that is not what I am arguing.
The actual conclusion that your argument allows you to draw - and the thing that I have been saying for this entire time - is that a Nonpareil that flooded the world for forty days does not exist.
This is not complicated.
"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
