Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rcscwc · 12-15-2008, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by rcscwc

When an object has smoke, it has fire too.

The presence of smoke is thus evidence of presence of fire.

But is the absence evidence [smoke] an evidence of absence [of fire]? Not at all.

So, based on your logics, if there is no smoke in your house, it is likely or most reasonable to expect that your house is on fire or it has burnt to the ground.

Based on your logics, no evidence for Unicorns is a good indicator for the existence of Unicorns.

Based on your logics, a defendant must be guilty of a crime or likely to have committed a crime once no evidence can be produced.

Your logics is not reasonable, it is upside down.

And, in the real world, smoke is not the only evidence of a fire.

Fact, yourargument is so much upside down, it a non-argument. So one by one.

Quote:

So, based on your logics, if there is no smoke in your house, it is likely or most reasonable to expect that your house is on fire or it has burnt to the ground.

RCS: Either you are a big dude or...
Smoke is an evidence of fire. Absebce of smoke is not evidence of absence of fire. Smoke indicates fire, but a fiery object need not be smoky.
**

Quote:

Based on your logics, no evidence for Unicorns is a good indicator for the existence of Unicorns.

RCS: ZERO evidence of absence is impossible, for uniciorns too.
**

Quote:

Based on your logics, a defendant must be guilty of a crime or likely to have committed a crime once no evidence can be produced.

RCS: Crime has to be proved by positive evidence. If evidence is not there, the defendent might still have committed the crime.Absence of evidence is not absence of guilt, not always. If you do not know this then...
**

Quote:

Your logics is not reasonable, it is upside down.

And, in the real world, smoke is not the only evidence of a fire.

RCS: Yeah. But smoke IS a definite indicator of fire.

aa5874 · 12-15-2008, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rcscwc

RCS: Either you are a big dude or...
Smoke is an evidence of fire. Absebce of smoke is not evidence of absence of fire. Smoke indicates fire, but a fiery object need not be smoky.

So what is your point? You have fire, you have no smoke, so are you claiming you have no fire?

You are not making any sense.

If you have no evidence of fire, why do you think it is reasonable to assume that there was fire?

Only if you are illogical.

Quote:

RCS: ZERO evidence of absence is impossible, for uniciorns too.
**

If all things are possible, then it is possible that your statement is not true.

Quote:

RCS: Crime has to be proved by positive evidence. If evidence is not there, the defendent might still have committed the crime.Absence of evidence is not absence of guilt, not always. If you do not know this then...
**

Is it illogical or unreasonable for a defendant to claim that it is impossible that he committed a crime, when he did not?

Quote:

RCS: ... But smoke IS a definite indicator of fire.

Why claim it is likely there was a fire when you have no indicators?

Only if you are illogical, unreasonable and believe that the impossible can happen.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.