Philosophy Now Forum

I understand that we'r here to do philosophy, consisting of sound arguments, but is this really a sound argument or just Philosophy Explorer's usual babble?

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

HexHammer wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Hex said:

"This is a blatant lie, I've given long and forfilling answers, and this only proves you have never read my answers, but only come here to to get attention and run away just like vegetariantaxidermy says."

Not on my threads you haven't

Prove it!

Negatives can't be proven. How about a few examples?

PhilX

Hex,this is sometimes better know as, "evidence of absence".

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_ ... nce_of_God


The argument cannot be used in any willy-nilly sort of way if this is what you are asking.

Ginkgo wrote:Hex,this is sometimes better know as, "evidence of absence".

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_ ... nce_of_God


The argument cannot be used in any willy-nilly sort of way if this is what you are asking.

..aka nonsense and babble in this case?

HexHammer wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:Hex,this is sometimes better know as, "evidence of absence".

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_ ... nce_of_God


The argument cannot be used in any willy-nilly sort of way if this is what you are asking.

..aka nonsense and babble in this case?

I am not sure because I walked into the middle of the argument.

If I were to say that I suspect there are miniature aliens hiding in my house I might conduct a thorough investigation to the best of my ability. I will probably come to the conclusion that my house is alien free. In order words, I am saying there is "evidence of absence" when it comes to aliens occupying my house. I cannot say this with absolute certainty. I can be 99.99999999999 percent sure that evidence of absence is a fair call in this case and most people would say this is all the proof I need.

If someone were to come to my house an examine my findings they might want to claim I am wrong. There are in fact aliens occupying house and you can not disprove this one hundred percent absolute certainty. My answer should always be that mine is a reasonable claim under the circumstances. If you want to say there are aliens in my house because I cannot disprove it then you are wrong. You need to come up with hard evidence of alien occupation.

This is often referred to as Russell's teapot

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

Ginkgo wrote:

HexHammer wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:Hex,this is sometimes better know as, "evidence of absence".

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_ ... nce_of_God


The argument cannot be used in any willy-nilly sort of way if this is what you are asking.

..aka nonsense and babble in this case?

I am not sure because I walked into the middle of the argument.

If I were to say that I suspect there are miniature aliens hiding in my house I might conduct a thorough investigation to the best of my ability. I will probably come to the conclusion that my house is alien free. In order words, I am saying there is "evidence of absence" when it comes to aliens occupying my house. I cannot say this with absolute certainty. I can be 99.99999999999 percent sure that evidence of absence is a fair call in this case and most people would say this is all the proof I need.

If someone were to come to my house an examine my findings they might want to claim I am wrong. There are in fact aliens occupying house and you can not disprove this one hundred percent absolute certainty. My answer should always be that mine is a reasonable claim under the circumstances. If you want to say there are aliens in my house because I cannot disprove it then you are wrong. You need to come up with hard evidence of alien occupation.

This is often referred to as Russell's teapot

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

Uhmmm, you make all kinds of arguments in his favor without really knowing him.

I've been trying to argue with him just as we conversate now, when ever he tries to make a sound argument, he utterly fails, he can't say a single intelligent thing, as he seemingly has an IQ of 80-100 ..being very generous.

To be perfectly honest I am not aware of the arguments being explored in this thread. I am not trying to favour anyone because I don't know how the arguments I have presented fall into line with the theme of this thread.

HexHammer wrote:I understand that we'r here to do philosophy, consisting of sound arguments, but is this really a sound argument or just Philosophy Explorer's usual babble?

HexHammer wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Hex said:

"This is a blatant lie, I've given long and forfilling answers, and this only proves you have never read my answers, but only come here to to get attention and run away just like vegetariantaxidermy says."

Not on my threads you haven't

Prove it!

Negatives can't be proven. How about a few examples?

PhilX

Problem posed by OP: Is the following 'sound philosophy' -

Hex asserts P. P = 'I have given long and forfilling [sic] answers.'

Philx asserts Q = 'Not on my threads', which = "P is false for the subset of threads created by me")

Hex says: prove Q

Philx says: One cannot prove a negative.

Analysis:

Philx only claims Q, that P is not true for Philx's threads. If he wanted to prove this, he could cut and paste each one of Hex's (finite) posts on Philx's (finite) set of threads.

Presumably (according to Philx) this would reveal that Q is true.

Therefore, Q is, indeed, capable of easy proof, contrary to Philx's claim, if by 'proof' one means empirical verification. The answer to Hex's OP problem is 'no.'

However, this would be somewhat of a Pyrrhic victory for Hexhammer.

Wyman wrote:However, this would be somewhat of a Pyrrhic victory for Hexhammer.

It wouldn't because he can't prove it and I win, that's the essence of OP.

What I really want to prove is the fact that philosophy explore can't produce a single intelligent argument, as he doesn't comprehed very basic things.

HexHammer wrote:This is a blatant lie, I've given long and forfilling answers

This is a blatant lie! Maybe on planet Hammer "babbel and nonsens" is forfilling; though to be fair, your answers have been longer since you added the e.

HexHammer wrote:What I really want to prove is the fact that philosophy explore can't produce a single intelligent argument...

You are going to struggle, Mr Hammer. You can't really prove it using logic, because if you succeeded you would falsify your own premise, rendering your argument unsound. Bit of a paradox.
The alternative is to rely on scientific evidence, but since we are talking about philosophical arguments, the only proof that they are useless is logical, so you're back to square one. Either way, you're fucked. If only you had another 20 IQ points, you might scrape together the wit to appreciate that. Ah well; there's always babble and nonsense.