Yellum Notnef

Dear Dephanie`s friend,
Please do joint us. Especially me!

Amie

...see what I get for not checking for typos before I hit submit? ...

Fenton speaking of joint, I was sitting in traffic the other day and I looked over and the guy in the car next to me was smoking a joint...without a care in the world...

The Lone Ranger

As has been pointed out, the burden of proof is on the claimant. Furthermore, the more extraordinary the claim, the higher the standard of proof must be.

If your friend claims that there's a monkey in the back yard, that's unusual, but hardly impossible. It wouldn't be difficult to prove the monkey's existence.

If your friend claims that there's an invisible monkey in the back yard, this is an extraordinary claim, because invisibility is a property that monkeys are not known to possess. An invisible monkey would be completely unprecidented. He or she is going to have to provide extraordinarily convincing proof before expecting anyone to take the claim seriously.

Things which possess contradictory properties cannot exist; it is a logical necessity. There are no married bachelors, for example. Neither is there such a thing as a square circle.

Therefore, if your friend insists that there is an invisible purple monkey in the back yard, you can safely conclude that (s)he is mistaken. The hypothetical monkey might be invisible, or it might be purple, but it cannot simultaneously be both. [Unless (s)he wants to argue that parts of the monkey are invisible, while parts of it are purple.]

Cheers,

Michael

galiel

Shouldn't that be the anus probandi?

(Sorry)

Shadowy Man

Actually, it is a property quite common amongst invisible monkeys.

Hobbs

I suspect the real problem behind this is not about burden of proof or proving a negative, but with his interpretations of his experiences. He really does experience an invisible monkey in his backyard, and nothing you say about it not existing will convince him otherwise. He has you telling him that there is no invisible monkey there, and he has his own experiences of an invisible monkey. Who's he gonna believe, and who, to him, has the burden of proof?

The problem is not that there is no invisible monkey. The problem is that his real experiences of an invisible monkey are not experiences of a real invisible monkey, at least not real in the sense that it is something that exists outside of his own mind. The invisible monkey exists, but, unless you or anyone else has any good reason to conclude otherwise, it exists only in his own mind. So the burden of proof is not on him to prove that there is an invisible monkey that he communicates with; he needs no proof of that, and there is no way he could provide you with proof of it. But he does have the burden of proof that what he is communicating with is an objective entity that actually exists outside his own mind.

What does he have to say about other people who communicate with invisible blue elephants, and still others who communicate with inaudible fragrant melodies (i.e. "other gods", if that isn't blatantly clear to him)? Does he claim that they aren't really having experiences? Or does he say that they are misunderstanding and misinterpreting their experiences? And if they can be so mistaken about the reality behind their experiences and their interpretations of those experiences, why does he think he is so much better at it? If he can answer how they can be so sure and yet be so mistaken, maybe he will have a clue as to how it could happen to him.

[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: Hobbs ]</p>

Sabine Grant

Bonsoir Harumi.... you opened up your post presenting that person as one of your friends. I do not know the value you attach to his friendship. But if you have any affection for your friend, just help him refocus on your relationship. Reply with a joke and remind him what he means to you. Maybe he will remember and come out of his need to make a stupid point.

snoiduspoitus

Just so. I've used this same staple a number of times, and know many people who have done so as well. I suspect 'invisible purple monkeys' has/have seeped into the pores of our subconscience.

Harumi

It was a post on livejournal. I had a talk with several non-religiously affiliated people, and I was frustrated by their illogical arguments, so I wrote of my frustration in my livejournal, hoping to get some sympathy. His reply was completely unwarranted, and extremely rude, not to mention false.

For one, he assumed that my friends were deists, which wasn't true.

Then he assumed that I started the argument while I was "showing off" my atheism.

Then he asked me why I was so obsessed and why I felt to need to prove my point.

It's a betrayal that I never thought to feel. He's always been so cynical and logical about things, in fact, I've always been surprised that he was a theist. But apparently not. You gotta wonder how a person can reject the entire Bible but the Easter portion (where did he get the criteria to get rid of the other parts?). And when I gave him the Easter Challenge of Dan Barker, he dismissed it.

ARGH! Theists! <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Wyz_sub10

Harumi,

Get a copy of Carl Sagan's Demon-Haunted World. There is an *excellent* chapter on this very issue.

Sagan talks about the invisible dragon that lives in his fiend's garage. In addition to being invisible, he floats, is non-corporeal, makes no sound, smell or tracks, etc.

Every test Sagan poses to his friend to ascertain whether the dragon exists, his friend created an ad hoc response citing why the test will fail.

In the end, it's clear that given the litany of excuses, it is impossible to rationally accept that this dragon exists. It may be fine for the friend to believe in the dragon, but there is no way he can expect others to believe it as well.

That book simply rocks, and it should be required reading for everyone.