“Nothing is Certain or Impossible; there are only probabilities”

Shawn writes:

Yes, I agree with your assessment. His statements, as you said, are indeed examples of appeal to possibility, appeal to probability, red herring, and moving the goal post.

skips777 writes:

"I think it is essential to note that we can never be absolutely certain of anything...".....are you absolutely certain of this?

"To dismiss a proposition on the basis it hasn’t been proven beyond all possible doubt is fallacious reasoning if one seeks knowledge."....are you absolutely certain of this?

"The purpose of the scientific method is to correctly identify the facts of reality,"....prove it using the scientific method

What is "Fallacy of Proving a Negative" please post a link from an academic source. Why is there no such fallacy listed on this site?

Dr. Richard writes:
[To skips777]

You misunderstand what I wrote, or you understood and misstate it. 

The Fallacy of Proving a Negative is on this site, but under a different name. Here is a short explanation.

Proving a negative means a person asking for proof of the non-existence of something for which no evidence of any kind exists. It is impossible to prove a negative and irrational to demand it.

Technically, this is a form of the Argument from Ignorance fallacy (argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents “a lack of contrary evidence”), is a common fallacy in informal logic. The proposition asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). 

This also represents a false dichotomy because it excludes other options, such as insufficient investigation and insufficient information to prove the proposition is either true or false. 

Carl Sagan, in Chapter 12 of his book “The Demon-Haunted World,” explains this well:

“Appeal to ignorance: the claim that whatever has not been proven false must be true, and vice versa. (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore, UFOs exist, and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

Unfortunately, arguments from ignorance easily find their way into discussions concerning the existence of a supernatural god. It is a fallacy to draw conclusions based on ignorance since this does not satisfactorily address the philosophic burden of proof. The most basic of which is: He who makes a proposition bears the burden of proof that the proposition is true. 

I  hope this short explanation is clear, but I can expand it if necessary.

skips777 writes:
[To Dr. Richard]

'"The Fallacy of Proving a Negative is on this site, but under a different name" ......Where? Post link or any other link that states "Fallacy of proving a negative" in those exact words because I'm curious where this idea came from. I'd prefer a college's site.

You didn't address any of my questions. And I don't need explanations of what appeal to ignorance is or the fallacy of negative proof.

"(Proving a negative)...... means a person asking for proof of the non-existence of something for which no evidence of any kind exists."  This is absurd. Nobody intelligent would ask for something, (proof) i.e. "evidence" knowing no evidence of any kind exists. I'd also like a link to one person who asked you or anyone else this.

"It is impossible to prove a negative."..and yet wiki explains how to do it.

Proving a negative[edit]
A negative claim is the opposite of an affirmative or positive claim. It asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something.[10]

A negative claim may or may not exist as a counterpoint to a previous claim. A proof of impossibility or an evidence of absence argument are typical methods to fulfill the burden of proof for a negative claim. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bur. . .

."and irrational to demand it." Again, are you absolutely certain this is true? 

You're attempting to obscure the issue by wording your "prove a negative" argument into a particular thing. i.e. You're playing the interlocutor in a biased way. You make "them" irrational because you think that will support your position on proving a negative. It's almost like creating a straw man.

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

Dr. Richard writes:
[To skips777]

Take a look at the answer by Rationalissimus of the Elenchus. 

skips777 writes:
[To Dr. Richard]

Be a man and admit I'm right and your wrong.

TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:
[To skips777]

'"The Fallacy of Proving a Negative is on this site, but under a different name" ......Where? Post link or any other link that states "Fallacy of proving a negative" in those exact words because I'm curious where this idea came from. I'd prefer a college's site.

I believe this is what Dr. Richard was referring to. See this, too.

skips777 writes:

"We don't have perfect information about most of the things we do,".....this is self-defeating. In order to know "we don't have perfect information" about anything, you'd have to be aware of what the perfect information is that we lack.

Do you have perfect information about not having perfect information on most things?

 

TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:
[To skips777]

"We don't have perfect information about most of the things we do,".....this is self-defeating. In order to know "we don't have perfect information" about anything, you'd have to be aware of what the perfect information is that we lack. Do you have perfect information about not having perfect information on most things?

I don't see how it is self-defeating. I'll use a board game analogy.

With chess, you can see every piece on the board at all times - including your opponents. In other words, you know your opponent's setup (the pieces they have left).

With poker, you can only see your hand. You can't see someone else's (but you do know that they have a set of cards, just like you). In other words, you don't know your opponent's set-up (and you're aware of it).

The other person's hand is an example of a known unknown. You're aware something exists, but lack specific information about it, and can't obtain that information. I see nothing 'self-defeating' about that; the concept has been recognised for a long time.

You might be tempted to argue that being aware of this information deficit entails perfect information, making my comment self-defeating...but simply being aware of something doesn't grant you details of it. I might be aware that I have a disease, but not know why or where I caught it from.

skips777 writes:
[To Rationalissimus of the Elenchus]

I'm assuming perfect knowledge (information) means 100% of the knowledge...if you're saying the information we have is itself imperfect, prove it per subject.

"I don't see how it is self-defeating.?" That's the problem. Since I'm not wasting my time explaining your inept grasp of what constitutes logical consistency, I'll Play stupid and let you support your bullshit with proof. So time to squirm.

1) list everything "we", humanity, knows about individually 

2)Take each thing in "everything we know about" and list everything we know about it as set A

3) now list everything we don't know about  each subject as set B

4) Now prove all the above information is true.

5) Now list all things that support your contention that satisfies "most".

Now be confident and answer the question. Is the assertion "We don't have perfect information about most of the things we do," based on having perfect information about this assertion? If not, then the assertion is possibly false, if so, prove it with evidence. 

BTW, only a coward uses the wholly ambiguous "perfect information". Now once again, you have to be aware of the outlying information that deems the current information imperfect in order to assert we don't have "perfect information". 

If you're going to argue the information is imperfect because people are imperfect, then the original assertion is nullified as being itself an imperfect proposition. Meaning it's the opinion of a person convinced nobody will call you out on it.

Now your blatant equivocation, which again proves ineptitude.

"With poker, you can only see your hand."..."hand" here is defined as your cards and specific "values"

" (but you do know that they have a set of cards (JUST LIKE YOU)" "set of cards" is not their "hand" as you first define it and even admit that it's just like you, except it isn't. Nice try.

"In other words, you don't know your opponent's set-up (hand) (and you're aware of it)."..you couldn't be more ambiguous if you tried. You must be used to convoluted reasoning being accepted as logical. It ain't.

" simply being aware of something doesn't grant you details of it." Aware here, again is ambiguity fallacy

"I might be aware that I have a disease," having a disease is how you're defining aware" i.e. Knowing it's present

"but not know why or where I caught it from." More convoluted bs . You now want aware to mean something more than knowjng its presence. Seriously, basic rudimentary mistakes

 

TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:

[To skips777]

I'm assuming perfect knowledge (information) means 100% of the knowledge...

So do you agree or disagree with this assertion? Are you suggesting that we do have perfect knowledge or not?

if you're saying the information we have is itself imperfect, prove it per subject.

You're going to have to clarify where you are going with this objection. If you're criticising the idea that we have imperfect information, surely you are not suggesting we have perfect information - this would imply omniscience. There'd be no need for further experimentation in the natural sciences, for example - we'd have answers to all the relevant 'big questions' in those fields. We'd have reached a point where we know everything. Since this is not the case, we cannot have perfect knowledge.

There is nothing further to 'prove' in terms of the statement, even though you continue asking me to "prove it with evidence". If I do not know something, then I can infer I do not know it (obviously). I don't have to "prove it" any further.

 

That's the problem. Since I'm not wasting my time explaining your inept grasp of what constitutes logical consistency, I'll Play stupid and let you support your bullshit with proof. So time to squirm.

And I'm not sure where you proceed to go with your list of numbered statements, either. Are you suggesting I prove, right here, everything that's been asserted in the history of mankind?

To clarify - I made the claim that we do not have perfect information about most of the things we do. I then used the game of poker to demonstrate what I meant (in card games, you typically don't know someone else's exact hand, but of course, you know they do have a hand). Understanding that someone has X, or that X exists somewhere, while not knowing everything about X, is perfectly consistent. Yet you charge me with inconsistency - something you fail to demonstrate later on.

BTW, only a coward uses the wholly ambiguous "perfect information". Now once again, you have to be aware of the outlying information that deems the current information imperfect in order to assert we don't have "perfect information". If you're going to argue the information is imperfect because people are imperfect, then the original assertion is nullified as being itself an imperfect proposition. Meaning it's the opinion of a person convinced nobody will call you out on it.

I gave a link with a definition for 'perfect information'. And yes, you are aware of outlying information when you say that the current knowledge you have isn't perfect. This is the concept of known unknowns, which I mentioned in my comment.

Also, me saying "we don't have perfect information" is not the same as saying "we can't know anything" or "we can't make any knowledge claims".

 

Now be confident and answer the question. Is the assertion "We don't have perfect information about most of the things we do," based on having perfect information about this assertion? If not, then the assertion is possibly false, if so, prove it with evidence. 

It is the logical conclusion reached by basic observation. If you accept that humans are not omniscient, then you are bound to accept that we do not have perfect information. I'm not sure what would constitute having 'perfect' information about the assertion, so you're going to have to explain that one as well.

"With poker, you can only see your hand."..."hand" here is defined as your cards and specific "values"

" (but you do know that they have a set of cards (JUST LIKE YOU)" "set of cards" is not their "hand" as you first define it and even admit that it's just like you, except it isn't. Nice try.

So what I'm getting from this is that you think I'm equivocating, because I said "hand", then said "set of cards". Except I was clear about what I did that - you don't know the person's specific cards and their values (hand). But you do know they have some cards that form a hand (what I referred to as a 'set of cards'). I was referring to different things, and made that clear by using a different phrase. If I were equivocating, I'd have used the same phrase to try and mislead people - but I didn't.

However, maybe you still don't get it. I'll rephrase:

Person A knows their own hand (A's hand).

Person B knows their own hand (B's hand).

Person A and Person B do not know each other's hand.

However, Person A and Person B know that the other person has 'a hand'.

"In other words, you don't know your opponent's set-up (hand) (and you're aware of it)."..you couldn't be more ambiguous if you tried. You must be used to convoluted reasoning being accepted as logical. It ain't.

There is no ambiguity here as this part of my comment follows from the previous one. The context is transferrable.

" simply being aware of something doesn't grant you details of it." Aware here, again is ambiguity fallacy

I go on to give an example of what I mean by 'awareness'. Note, though, that if you follow from the poker analogy I made, it should be easy enough to tell what I was going for.

"but not know why or where I caught it from." More convoluted bs . You now want aware to mean something more than knowjng its presence. Seriously, basic rudimentary mistakes

I use 'aware' to refer to knowledge of the disease existing. I then give knowing "why I caught it" or "where I caught it from" as examples of 'details about X'.

It follows the format "simply being aware of something doesn't grant you details of it", and is an example of the 'known unknowns' concept that I introduced earlier in my comment.

Perhaps the way I write at times isn't the clearest (a bit ironic, given my comments here). But if you are confused, it would be in your interests to ask me to explain myself, rather than suggesting my grasp on logic is "inept" (especially when you don't always make reasonable interpretations of my statements).

skips777 writes:

"Nothing is Certain or Impossible".....are they certain of this is the only question (response) needed