Originally posted by backdoorman
At the confusion of this poorly constructed post, I will limit my response to this: Whether you can or cannot prove a negative, you can certainly find facts that clearly suggest a negative assertion to be legitimate.
It looked fine to me....? 😕
Originally posted by backdoorman
If I say taking an aspirin relieves headache, I am by no means saying taking a whole box of aspirin is even more effective.
many many drug's effectiveness are dose dependent up to a certain point... If you're missing it, I'm also applying that as a metaphor for the topic... ✅
I never said you can't prove a negative. You just went on this random rant as if I said I was opposed to it in the first place.
Nothing you said negates this:
Originally posted by chithappens
Well even if we "knew" the rules of the universe we would not know how things might happen given certain parameters all the time (which is why a lot of BS scientific logic occurred when the WTC towers fell during 9/11; this is why I mentioned intervals) and this would include other unforseen variables that may be missed on accident.
Before I started my current path to becoming an English teacher, I was a mechanical engineering major. I'm not just talking out my ass. It doesn't even take any mathematical or scientific understanding - just a breakdown in simple logic.
Besides, whenever someone does not completely agree with you outright, your tone becomes aggressive and you think it means you are right. I don't care to continue discussing anything with anyone in that manner.
Originally posted by chithappens
I never said you can't prove a negative.
Originally posted by chithappens
[QUOTE=10782358]Originally posted by inimalist
[B]no, actually they cannot. Human mathematics are unable to, with 100% accuracy, predict events.There is no way to reduce error to 0%. One can be so close as to warrant calling it zero, but never zero.
Haha, it seems no one knows this. Intervals in Calculus make this clear. [/B][/QUOTE]
Originally posted by chithappens
You just went on this random rant as if I said I was opposed to it in the first place.
Actually, I went on this "random rant", because inimalist clearly stated it and continued to state it...that you agreed (which you did) was not the reason.
Originally posted by chithappens[/B][/QUOTE]
Nothing you said negates this:[QUOTE=10782652]Originally posted by chithappens
[B]Well even if we "knew" the rules of the universe we would not know how things might happen given certain parameters all the time (which is why a lot of BS scientific logic occurred when the WTC towers fell during 9/11; this is why I mentioned intervals) and this would include other unforseen variables that may be missed on accident.
I didn't argue that at all though, did I? In fact, I agreed with it, though adding another possibility.
Originally posted by chithappens
Before I started my current path to becoming an English teacher, I was a mechanical engineering major. I'm not just talking out my ass. It doesn't even take any mathematical or scientific understanding - just a breakdown in simple logic.
Are you talking about proving a negative? Because that is possible.
Are you talking about proving that something doesn't exist? Because that is possible.
Are you talking about us in this universe being unable to prove that something doesn't exist (just like we really are unable to prove that something exists)? Because...that is true, I'd not deny it either
Originally posted by chithappens
Besides, whenever someone does not completely agree with you outright, your tone becomes aggressive and you think it means you are right. I don't care to continue discussing anything with anyone in that manner.
Meh, you can whine about my tone, I am sure it's not sugar coated, maybe even mean or needlessly rude, but it doesn't change the facts I have on my side. I also have shown you that you did at least once agree that we can't prove a negative and you did once say that we can't prove that something doesn't exist. So, if you want to change the topic afterwards, go ahead, but don't pretend that it wasn't the topic to begin with and don't pretend it wasn't a topic you discussed.
Also, I like you, just imagine how people must feel about my tone and manner if I hate them.
Originally posted by Bardock42
//Are you talking about proving a negative? Because that is possible.
Are you talking about proving that something doesn't exist? Because that is possible.
Are you talking about us in this universe being unable to prove that something doesn't exist (just like we really are unable to prove that something exists)? Because...that is true, I'd not deny it either
lol
**** language
Originally posted by inimalist
no, actually they cannot. Human mathematics are unable to, with 100% accuracy, predict events.There is no way to reduce error to 0%. One can be so close as to warrant calling it zero, but never zero.
He is talking about predicting "events."
In any sort of calculation it is understood that "given these conditions" the answer should be x. One assumes everything is in place like it should be, and no external factor is affecting the calculation. There is no way to make answers for each variable until the unknown occurs.
Even in things we have scientific answers for, a lot of things tend to flex once the scale reaches large proportions. This is why engineers argued for years about how the 9/11 towers fell.
Originally posted by Bardock42Are you talking about proving a negative? Because that is possible.
Are you talking about proving that something doesn't exist? Because that is possible.
Are you talking about us in this universe being unable to prove that something doesn't exist (just like we really are unable to prove that something exists)? Because...that is true, I'd not deny it either
Prove a negative on paper and proving "events" is completely different.
Certain things can't be proven to not exist. Mathematically and scientifically, plenty of things can be proven to not exist but you can't prove my penis is not 8 inches without coming to measure (just as abstract in a sense as trying to prove that God does not exist because GOD CAN DO ANYTHING! YOU PROBABLY SEE GOD BUT DONT KNOW IT CAUSE HE WON'T ALLOW YOUR BRAIN TO REALIZE IT; see, it's annoying...). At least I hope you can't...
To even have this discussion properly, a situation must be given. Otherwise, we are just going over semantics at this point.
Originally posted by chithappens
He is talking about predicting "events."In any sort of calculation it is understood that "given these conditions" the answer should be x. One assumes everything is in place like it should be, and no external factor is affecting the calculation. There is no way to make answers for each variable until the unknown occurs.
Even in things we have scientific answers for, a lot of things tend to flex once the scale reaches large proportions. This is why engineers argued for years about how the 9/11 towers fell.
Prove a negative on paper and proving "events" is completely different.
Certain things can't be proven to not exist. Mathematically and scientifically, plenty of things can be proven to not exist but you can't prove my penis is not 8 inches without coming to measure (just as abstract in a sense as trying to prove that God does not exist because GOD CAN DO ANYTHING! YOU PROBABLY SEE GOD BUT DONT KNOW IT CAUSE HE WON'T ALLOW YOUR BRAIN TO REALIZE IT; see, it's annoying...). At least I hope you can't...
To even have this discussion properly, a situation must be given. Otherwise, we are just going over semantics at this point.
We were going over semantics. That's what it was about. I just said that..."on paper"...you can prove a negative. Which, I believe, inimalist denied. If he didn't then I really don't understand this whole conversation.
I did agree with you when you brought forth those points, though, it was not what I was arguing about. My point was really just an abstract one about logic and mathematics in general.
To me it seems like we are in agreement as to what you said now, but it feels like a shift or right out change in topic. I also feel like you say what I supported and stated throughout the last two pages. Maybe I just found it a bit insulting when you stated the "Why do you think I don't argue here anymore" (paraphrased) thing
Originally posted by Bardock42
We were going over semantics. That's what it was about. I just said that..."on paper"...you can prove a negative. Which, I believe, inimalist denied. If he didn't then I really don't understand this whole conversation.I did agree with you when you brought forth those points, though, it was not what I was arguing about. My point was really just an abstract one about logic and mathematics in general.
To me it seems like we are in agreement as to what you said now, but it feels like a shift or right out change in topic. I also feel like you say what I supported and stated throughout the last two pages. Maybe I just found it a bit insulting when you stated the "Why do you think I don't argue here anymore" (paraphrased) thing
Well my mistake.
I just thought the convo was getting too off topic and was getting too literal because I thought everyone could have summed up the arguments in a few sentences.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Sorry, I don't follow.Your train of thought.
Not in general.
I mean, not as in I don't follow you moving wise.
I mean....
...what do you mean?
its a matter of definitions and stuff
"proving a negative" in that way deals with finding and producing evidence, not about tautologies and the like.
I just found it amusing the way you put it, really sort of made that linguistic fudge that much more apparent