Re: Snuba - Bad Idea

Chris Guynn writes:

>>"Chris Wolf" <cwolf41@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> Because the demand to "Prove that you're a man," is a demand for a
>> positive, rather than a demand for a negative (such as "Show me that
>> you're
>> not a gremlin"). It's possible for me to do the first. It's not possible
>> for me to do the second.

>Only because you've convinced yourself of that. If you respond to the
>demand to prove something when no proof has been shown otherwise, how can
>you then turn around and refuse under the same circumstances? That appears
>to be what your entire argument about proving a negative stems on.

No, that's not what my argument rests on. It totally depends on whether
I'm being asked to prove a positive, or to prove a negative. If I'm asked
to prove that I'm a man, then I'm being asked to prove a positive. I can
prove a positive whenever I feel like it, or whenever I'm asked to do so.
I can also decline to prove a positive. I don't have to wait for someone
to provide some evidence to the contrary, before it's safe for me to
proceed.

For example, when Huntzinger demanded that I provide proof for my first
five years on the Internet (since he could only find proof for my last ten
years), I was perfectly free to ignore him (and I did). He had no proof
that I had lied about my first five years on the Internet, and so I was
under no obligation to respond to his claim. Of course I could have
elected to provide proof for my first five years on the Internet, to back
up my claim that I've been on the Net for about 15 years, but I chose not
to bother. I'm not required to prove every positive claim I make, and if
someone elects not to believe my claim that I've been on the Net for about
15 years, I could care less.

You're still missing the essence, here. It isn't that I've been asked to
prove something, when no proof to the contrary has been shown otherwise.
That's a secondary consideration. It depends on whether I've been asked
to prove a positive or to prove a negative. If it's a positive, I can
elect to do it, and I can stop after the first round of proof (assuming the
other side has no evidence to challenge my proof). But if it's a negative,
then I can never stop, because the other side can always continue to demand
that I validate my previous evidence, without needing any evidence that my
previous evidence is invalid.

Why can they do this? Because I have agreed to prove a negative. I have
agreed to provide proof of a negative, when no positive evidence has first
been offered by the other side.

The only way for me to stop, when trying to prove a negative, is to
suddenly violate my stated epistemological standard, and refuse to finish
the job of proving the negative (never mind that the job can never be
finished).

It strictly depends on what I'm being asked to prove. If it's a positive;
no problem. But if it's a negative, then I'm being asked to prove
something FOR WHICH NO POSITIVE EVIDENCE EXISTS (prove that gremlins don't
exist). Unlike the Kennedy example, I don't even have the hope of citing
evidence to the contrary, to prove my point, because there is no evidence
to the contrary for something that doesn't exist in the first place.
Kennedy's assassination existed; gremlins don't. "Contrary" means "opposed
to something in reality," but there are no gremlins in reality.

>> Of course I'm under no obligation to prove that I'm a man, unless you can
>> first show evidence to the contrary. Then I'm obliged to answer that
>> evidence, if I'm claiming that I'm a man. But even if you have no
> >evidence
>> to the contrary, I can still legitimately choose to answer your claim that
>> I prove that I'm a man.

>And if you did so without requiring I show evidence that you aren't, then
>you have no basis to stop when I require that you prove that your evidence
>is not falsified. It's the principle of the matter after all.

What you're overlooking is that, when I'm proving a positive, you can't
require me to prove that my evidence is not falsified, unless you can first
produce some evidence that it IS falsified. That's the basic rule under
which you prove a positive. Your opponent is required to show some
evidence to the contrary before he can demand proof from you. So when he
runs out of evidence to the contrary, you can stop.

But the basic rule under which you prove a negative, is just the opposite.
You agree to provide proof, even though your opponent has NOT shown any
evidence to the contrary. That establishes the ground rule under which we
proceed. The first time you agree to prove a negative, when your opponent
has provided no evidence to the contrary, you have established the
fundamental rule of the game that his demands for proof do not need to be
preceded by some evidence to the contrary, on his part. Which means you
have no epistemological grounds on which to refuse him when he meets the
primary standard of proof, with never-ending demands for validating your
previous proof. And since he is not required to provide evidence that
anything is wrong with your evidence, the demands can be never-ending.

>> Where in the world did you get that idea? If my proof is valid, and
>> conclusive, then I've proven my claim.

>It's not always that simple.

Actually, it is. At least if you think in principles.

Chris Wolf
cwolf41@comcast.net
www.jeffcomp.com
Currently in the killfile:
Scott
Curtis
Limey Dave
Chilly

>From: Chris Wolf cwolf41@comcast.net


>For example, when Huntzinger demanded that I provide proof for my first
>five years on the Internet (since he could only find proof for my last ten
>years), I was perfectly free to ignore him (and I did). He had no proof
>that I had lied about my first five years on the Internet, and so I was
>under no obligation to respond to his claim.
>Of course I could have
>elected to provide proof for my first five years on the Internet, to back
>up my claim that I've been on the Net for about 15 years,

For the seventh time:

"Sorry Sonny, but the burden of proof is on he who makes the claim."

-Chris Wolf





Popeye
"Best thing for him, really. His therapy
was going nowhere," -Hannibal Lector.

"Popeye NCAT3" <buzcutt454@aol.comByteMe> wrote in message
news:20040710182500.05704.00000984@mb-m27.aol.com...
> >From: Chris Wolf cwolf41@comcast.net
>
>
> >For example, when Huntzinger demanded that I provide proof for my first
> >five years on the Internet (since he could only find proof for my last
ten
> >years), I was perfectly free to ignore him (and I did). He had no proof
> >that I had lied about my first five years on the Internet, and so I was
> >under no obligation to respond to his claim.
> >Of course I could have
> >elected to provide proof for my first five years on the Internet, to back
> >up my claim that I've been on the Net for about 15 years,
>
> For the seventh time:
>
> "Sorry Sonny, but the burden of proof is on he who makes the claim."
>
> -Chris Wolf
>

And y'earlier you said
"God does not exist"
"Gremlins don't exist"

Prove it. Pick one.

Bear in mind that for the latter,
http://www.auto-makesnmodels.com/AMC_Gremlin.html

Dennis
>
>
>
>
> Popeye
> "Best thing for him, really. His therapy
> was going nowhere," -Hannibal Lector.