What is "Earth-like"?

[Forty Two]

You're siding with 42. Who's more likely to be the fool?

You.

[pErvinalia]

This is semantic idiocy. Read my next post. I clearly mean proof of absence. Although, no doubt you will deny this. Black is white, after all...

Yes, you say you meant to write something different than you wrote, even after I identified exactly that difference, and you claim that it is I who says black is white.

To recap -- I explained why absence of evidence is, in fact, evidence of absence. I even explained to you that a better phrasing would be absence of evidence is not conclusive proof of absence.

You blather on about how I don't even know how to logic, and that it's so simple that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I explain to you more than once, in words a three year old would understand, and you keep on with your nonsense.

The problem is that I don't actually read everything you write, because it's often walls of nonsensical text. Not that this makes any difference to the demonstrable fact that I was referring to proof of absence.

Eventually you decide you've been shown the light and you decide, oh, I can't just admit that absence of evidence does, in fact, constitute evidence of absence, at least sometimes -- you instead decide to say that what you "clearly mean" is "proof" of absence. Of course I will "deny" this. It's not what you said. And, it's what I told you some posts ago, and you still continued on with your original position.

Bullshit. It's impossible to take the posts where it is clear that i am talking about 'proof' as being about the presence or absence of any evidence at all. Of course, it's not impossible for you to do, as words have totally different meanings to you (and yes, I admit I used a lazy form of words with that phrase).

Further, you're still off a bit if you say "absence of evidence is not proof of absence." What evidence of absence is not is CONCLUSIVE proof of absence.

Bullshit. It most certainly is not proof of absence over the whole domain. That there's no elephant to be found in your garage is indeed proof that there isn't an elephant in your garage, but it's certainly not proof that there's no elephants in the whole world.

Nevertheless, as you have now acknowledged that absence of evidence is, in fact, evidence of absence, then our debate on this topic is closed.

It's actually not, because what I said still applies to Rainbow's claim. A claim that you have defended.

This whole "black is white" accusation you keep making against me is laid bare, however, by the fact that you attempt to level this allegation at me, at the same time as you are declare that you meant something other than what you wrote. You didn't just write it once, dude. You were on about this for days. And, you kept on about it even after I laid it out for you on a silver platter - telling you that "proof" was the better word to use (albeit with the modifier, conclusive).

I didn't read where you said "that 'proof' was the better word". Can your biased mind countenance this possibility? And shortly, when you deny it once again, I'll point out the times where what I said can only be interpreted to mean 'proof of absence'.

[pErvinalia]

Ok, I just looked at your link, and it's an argument from semantics. I am clearly using the phrase in the second meaning described in the link, although, the correct way to state it is: "Absence of evidence is not proof of absence".

I've previously pointed this out -- for example when I said "A better phrasing is "absence of evidence is not conclusive proof of absence." But, that doesn't sound as catchy." You then continued your nonsense.

"argument from semantics" -- lol -

Of course it is an argument from semantics. I clearly used it in the sense of proof. And it is logically sound with that usage.

If you "clearly used it in the sense of proof" why did you continue to maintain your position after I illustrated the difference between evidence and proof?

Because I don't read all of your posts. They are invariable torturous.

[rainbow]

The key evidence is that there have been no new replicators!

That is what I said.

We won!

I'm very pleased. Now would you like to answer my questions above?

[Forty Two]

This is semantic idiocy. Read my next post. I clearly mean proof of absence. Although, no doubt you will deny this. Black is white, after all...

Yes, you say you meant to write something different than you wrote, even after I identified exactly that difference, and you claim that it is I who says black is white.

To recap -- I explained why absence of evidence is, in fact, evidence of absence. I even explained to you that a better phrasing would be absence of evidence is not conclusive proof of absence.

You blather on about how I don't even know how to logic, and that it's so simple that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I explain to you more than once, in words a three year old would understand, and you keep on with your nonsense.

The problem is that I don't actually read everything you write, because it's often walls of nonsensical text. Not that this makes any difference to the demonstrable fact that I was referring to proof of absence.

You're a joke. You weren't "clearly" doing anything of the kind. That much is obvious from the record. Stop embarrassing yourself.

Eventually you decide you've been shown the light and you decide, oh, I can't just admit that absence of evidence does, in fact, constitute evidence of absence, at least sometimes -- you instead decide to say that what you "clearly mean" is "proof" of absence. Of course I will "deny" this. It's not what you said. And, it's what I told you some posts ago, and you still continued on with your original position.

Bullshit.

Bulltrue. I explained this over, and over and over again to you. I explained why absence of evidence is evidence of absence, and I plainly and clearly made the distinction between conclusive proof of absence and "evidence" of absence. You kept on and on with your insulting snark, implying that to say absence of evidence is evidence of absence is contrary to logic, and completely ridiculous. Nobody who knew anything about logic could take the position I took, you said. It turns out that now you're admitting I was write all along, and you were just misstating your position. What you really meant to say was exactly what I told you -- that absence of evidence was not conclusive proof of absence, but absence of evidence can most certainly be evidence of absence. You just want to pretend that what you "meant" all along when you used the word "evidence" was proof. LOL. Laughable.

It's impossible to take the posts where it is clear that i am talking about 'proof'

It isn't clear at all, and you never stated or implied that you were talking about proof. You posted several times after I made that distinction to you -- clearly continuing your argument. You're lying.

as being about the presence or absence of any evidence at all.

Even more laughable. Now you want to say that you were "clearly" talking about "proof" as being about the presence or absence of any evidence at all!!! That, of course, has nothing to do with the aphorism, which is "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Of course, it's not impossible for you to do, as words have totally different meanings to you (and yes, I admit I used a lazy form of words with that phrase).

Laughable. You are projecting. Look - in this case, you are saying that you were using the word "evidence to mean "proof" (as in conclusive proof, or that the absence of evidence PROVES absence. You're the one using the word with a totally different meaning than the common English usage. Yes, if that's what you meant, you were "lazy" in your language. But, that's not MY problem. That's not me using "totally different meanings" for the words. That's me NOT being lazy, and YOU being lazy. That not me using totally different meaning of the word, that's YOU using a totally different meaning of the word.

And, don't forget that you KEPT ON USING that "totally different meaning" after I laid it out for you on a silver platter, explaining to you exactly the distinction you are now admitting.

God damn, man, you are a piece of work. You are just blatantly lying and making it up here as you go along, and you are somehow trying to turn this around on me?

Further, you're still off a bit if you say "absence of evidence is not proof of absence." What evidence of absence is not is CONCLUSIVE proof of absence.

Bullshit. It most certainly is not proof of absence over the whole domain. That there's no elephant to be found in your garage is indeed proof that there isn't an elephant in your garage, but it's certainly not proof that there's no elephants in the whole world.

You don't understand what "proof" means. There can be proof for something even if that proof is not "conclusive" proof. So, if Carl Sagan says there is a dragon in his garage, and you go there and see no evidence of a dragon in the garage, that's pretty good proof that the absence of a dragon. The absence of evidence is PROOF of the absence of the dragon. That doesn't mean that it's irrefutable proof or conclusive proof. Sagan can say that the dragon was out for bit, gone down to the shops. Or, he can say it's an invisible dragon. And, he might be right. There really might be a dragon in his garage.

Who the fuck said anything about elephants in the whole world? That wasn't the event in question. The event was "elephant in garage." Not "elephant in the whole world." I don't want to insult you, because I have to think you have a medical issue. But, come on....

Nevertheless, as you have now acknowledged that absence of evidence is, in fact, evidence of absence, then our debate on this topic is closed.

It's actually not, because what I said still applies to Rainbow's claim. A claim that you have defended.

LOL. You were wrong. Just admit it.

This whole "black is white" accusation you keep making against me is laid bare, however, by the fact that you attempt to level this allegation at me, at the same time as you are declare that you meant something other than what you wrote. You didn't just write it once, dude. You were on about this for days. And, you kept on about it even after I laid it out for you on a silver platter - telling you that "proof" was the better word to use (albeit with the modifier, conclusive).

I didn't read where you said "that 'proof' was the better word". Can your biased mind countenance this possibility? And shortly, when you deny it once again, I'll point out the times where what I said can only be interpreted to mean 'proof of absence'.

You're full of it. Anyone who didn't know it before, knows it now.

[pErvinalia]

Wall of nonsensical text. Here is where it will be clear to everyone (except you, of course) that I was referring to absence of proof (or conclusive proof if you must have it that way).

[Forty Two]

Ok, I just looked at your link, and it's an argument from semantics. I am clearly using the phrase in the second meaning described in the link, although, the correct way to state it is: "Absence of evidence is not proof of absence".

I've previously pointed this out -- for example when I said "A better phrasing is "absence of evidence is not conclusive proof of absence." But, that doesn't sound as catchy." You then continued your nonsense.

"argument from semantics" -- lol -

Of course it is an argument from semantics. I clearly used it in the sense of proof. And it is logically sound with that usage.

If you "clearly used it in the sense of proof" why did you continue to maintain your position after I illustrated the difference between evidence and proof?

Because I don't read all of your posts. They are invariable torturous.

[Forty Two]

Wall of nonsensical text. Here is where it will be clear to everyone (except you, of course) that I was referring to absence of proof (or conclusive proof if you must have it that way).

Wow - that's a lie, isn't it? Here's the reality. You did, in fact, read the very post in which I told you the distinction between "evidence" and conclusive proof.

On Monday, September 5, at 3:53pm (EST-US time), I posted this: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1676977

In that post, I did not post a wall of text - I posted this: "In circumstances where "...it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence."

— Copi, Introduction to Logic (1953), p. 95

Carl Sagan alluded to this in The Demon Haunted World, too (but, then you probably never read that either). During his life, Sagan explicitly criticized the phrase "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - since the statement is false, though absence of evidence is not necessarily strong evidence.

A better phrasing is "absence of evidence is not conclusive proof of absence." But, that doesn't sound as catchy."

Note, this was the quote you asked for from Copi's Introduction to Logic, and he says it's perfectly reasonable in some circumstances to take the absence of proof as the POSITIVE PROOF of its nonoccurrence. I closed the post by referring to the better phrasing being "absence of evidence is not CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF ABSENCE." Key word being CONCLUSIVE, because you can have positive proof for something which is not conclusively proved.

Nobody else posted after I made that post until September 6 at 12:34am (EST-US) when YOU -- eRvin -- YOU -- posted this http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1677014 We know you read my post because: (a) you were the very next poster - you were looking right at it when you posted, (b) you addressed my post specifically, (c) you QUOTED part of my post in your response to my post.

In your response, quoting me, and specifically addressing the very post you say you did not read, you just insulted me: "That's his opinion of what is reasonable, not logic. You don't even fucking know what logic is! And what of your bullshit strawman? Are you hoping if you ignore it I will forget you just had a break from reality?"

Rainbow then, immediately after your post, quoted my entire post of 9/5 3:53pm above, thanked me and said I was absolutely right. http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1677033

You were then the very next person to respond again -- you addressed Rainbow's statement that I was right and you posted this post http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1677034 You said "He's so far from right it's not even funny...."]

Because you kept on about it, I posted this: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1677110 proving that absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.

Your immediate response was -- http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1677116 You insult me, again, and declare "It's simply not [evidence of absence], unless you are talking on a scale that means it is physically possible to investigate all space and definitively prove that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. This is fucking simple stuff. You show repeatedly you can't even grasp the basics of logic and arguments. It's a level of Dunning-Kruger that is embarrassing."

From all this, you're now stating that all along it should have been "clear" that what you were talking about was "proof" instead of "evidence," and that's me who isn't being fair. AND you make the claim that you didn't read my posts, even when you responded directly to them, and even QUOTED FROM THE VERY POST THAT YOU NOW SAY YOU DID NOT READ! My god man, have you no shame?

On 9/6/16 at 3:04pm (EST-US) you discovered you had made a grave error, and that you were wrong. You then begin the process of digging yourself our, and trying to find a way to dishonestly point the finger back at me. You're hoping that folks won't look too closely. You say http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1677121 "Ok, I just looked at your link, and it's an argument from semantics. I am clearly using the phrase in the second meaning described in the link, although, the correct way to state it is: "Absence of evidence is not proof of absence"."

I pointed out exactly that absence of evidence is not conclusive proof of absence" is perhaps a better phrasing -- you responded to that post where I pointed out, and you even cut and pasted a portion of it. In your responses to that post and to Rainbow's agreement with that post, you insulted me more than once and accused me of not grasping the basics of Logic, having the Dunning-Kruger effect, being "so far from right it's not even funny," that I don't even know what logic is, and that I raised a strawman...etc.

Your excuse - you say now, that you didn't read the post to which you were the very first responder, and from which you quoted in your response. You declare that you "clearly" meant something other than what you posted. Even though you say you used the word evidence to mean "proof", you claim that it is I who is applying different meanings to words.

Your final out here will be, let me guess - "Stop lying 42, I told you I didn't read all of your posts. So, CLEARLY that meant that while I read some of your post on 9/5 above, I CLEARLY did not read the part where you illustrated the difference between evidence and conclusive proof. I mean that post was a "wall" of 100 words. CLEARLY I wouldn't read all that. I'm CLEARLY not lying about not reading that post. I'm not just weaseling out of it and making it up as I go along."

[pErvinalia]

Oh man, get a life.

I responded to PART of that post. I'm sure you think you are a mind reader and know what I read, but alas, we don't take "mind reading" as evidence around here. I stopped reading after this point in your post just now. My post I referred to shows I was clearly using the phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" in the sense of 'absence of evidence is not (conclusive) proof of absence'. Nothing else you could have written there could be relevant, unless you were agreeing with me. But given black is white for you, I have no doubt you won't be agreeing with me. Shock horror...

[pErvinalia]

Your immediate response was -- http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1677116 You insult me, again, and declare "It's simply not [evidence of absence], unless you are talking on a scale that means it is physically possible to investigate all space and definitively prove that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. This is fucking simple stuff. You show repeatedly you can't even grasp the basics of logic and arguments. It's a level of Dunning-Kruger that is embarrassing."

Oh cheers, thanks for reminding me of that. That's another post where i make it clear I am talking about the absence of proof. I even explicitly state it in a different way. No doubt with your history of parsing English you will fail to see this. Que sera.

[Forty Two]

Oh man, get a life.

I responded to PART of that post.

As I predicted above -- you continue your bullshit. I predicted "Your final out here will be, let me guess - "Stop lying 42, I told you I didn't read all of your posts. So, CLEARLY that meant that while I read some of your post on 9/5 above, I CLEARLY did not read the part where you illustrated the difference between evidence and conclusive proof. I mean that post was a "wall" of 100 words. CLEARLY I wouldn't read all that. I'm CLEARLY not lying about not reading that post. I'm not just weaseling out of it and making it up"

LOL - the post you responded to was probably less than 100 words. You were looking right at it when you responded. You managed to actually "quote" about half of my post, leaving out the other 50 words that you say you did not bother to read.

You then went on to insult me. in multiple posts after that, saying that it's not even logic, and I'm so far from wrong it's not even funny. You saw my 100 word post AGAIN when you responded to Rainbow's post agreeing with my argument. You would have seen my 100 word post fully quoted in Rainbow's post, you saw Rainbow agreed with me, saying I'm right, and then you declared that I was so far from right it's not even funny. Now, you want to say that you were bleating on about how I was "so far from right" even though you claim you didn't read half the post you were declaring was wrong.

You can't get out of this eRvin. You make no sense here. If you skipped a chunk of my 100 word post, how in the world did you have the gall to declare in a one sentence response not only that I was wrong, but you added insulting language to it - that I was so wrong it was ridiculous. Yet, you didn't even read the post? Wow, man. Wow.

Word to the wise now when dealing with you. When arguing with eRvin, always get an affirmation that he's actually read your argument. It seems quite likely that he simply bleats on and on without even bothering to try to understand what you're saying.

Here, he finds out he was dead wrong, and instead of saying - "dude, yeah - I see where you were correct here, and I actually agree with you. I didn't read that bit where you made the distinction clear. Sorry I insulted you wrongly." He doubles down - and claims that HIS ERROR was CLEARLY not an error, but was CLEARLY his use of the word "evidence" in a different sense, and CLEARLY it should not have been assumed that he read the posts he was insulting!

I'm sure you think you are a mind reader and know what I read, but alas, we don't take "mind reading" as evidence around here.

I did not claim to read your mind -- there you go lying again. I never made that assertion. Above, I explained exactly why it's clear you read the post. I made a post, and you responded to it. You not only responded to it, but you were THE FIRST PERSON to respond to it. You were not only the first person to respond to it, but also you QUOTED about half of it in your response. And, you not only QUOTED me, but you went on to insult me about how wrong I was on the very point we're discussing. And, you then responded to Rainbow's post -- and Rainbow had quoted my post in its entirety. You were the very next person to respond to Rainbow's post too. And ,then you declared me so wrong it wasn't funny, and you insulted me again. You also insulted me and claimed I didn't even know what logic was and I suffered Dunning-Kruger.

First, you claimed you didn't read all of my posts. Now that's shown that you did read the post in question, you want to try to get everyone to believe that you skipped some of it, but read other bits of it. LOL. It was soooooo long -- such a wall of text, that you couldn't get through it.

But, even more directly, the bit I quoted from Copi -- it also refers to the word "proof" - and discusses absence of proof being in some circumstances "positive proof" of absence, albeit not conclusive. My line about better wording being absence of evidence is not conclusive proof of absence was just a recap of what Copi and Sagan (the guys I discussed in the post you read) said. You didn't need to read my recap to get the point.

I stopped reading after this point in your post just now. My post I referred to shows I was clearly using the phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" in the sense of 'absence of evidence is not (conclusive) proof of absence'.

The post you linked to doesn't show that at all. If that's how you were using it, you would have agreed with me. Because THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WAS TELLING YOU. And, that's exactly what you were insulting me about and telling me how far from right I was. If you really did believe that absence of evidence was not proof positive of absence, then you would have said so. Or, at least, you would have said you agreed with me because THAT'S FUCKING EXACTLY WHAT I WAS SAYING. That's what Copi was saying. That's what Sagan was saying. Instead, you declared "argument from authority!" "Strawman!" "...you don't know logic!" and "you're so far from wrong it's not even funny!"

Come on eRvin. Come on. Just, really, man.

Nothing else you could have written there could be relevant, unless you were agreeing with me. But given black is white for you, I have no doubt you won't be agreeing with me. Shock horror...

I obviously agree with you that absence of evidence is, in fact, often evidence of absence. You apparently agree with that now, even though before you were declaring me, and the support I offered for that proposition, be a mere argument from authority, not talking about logic, not even logic, a strawman, and "so far from wrong..." -- all that kind of thing.

You try to pretend that "black is white" for me, when you were wrong, and you admit that you were wrong. You explain it away by saying you were using the word "evidence" in the sense of conclusive proof (which, of course, is incorrect - meaning, you were using your own meaning and declaring black to be white in that regard).

You've tried to weasel out of it by saying you don't read all my posts, and it's proven that you did read the post in question. You now try to say that well, you read the post in question, but not each and every one of its 100 words.

Even if you are telling the truth here, eRvin, and you didn't read the last 25 words of the 100 word post above, it doesn't help you out here. If that's true, that it means the following: (a) I posted it, and you read the first 3/4 of it, and responded to it, insulting me, and (b) Rainbow quoted the entirety of my 100 word post, and agreed with me, to which you AGAIN responded with insults and declared me to be "so far from right..." it wasn't even funny. All the while - you hadn't even read the argument you were declaring wrong (and not only wrong -- it was more like you were declaring it ridiculous, and unfathomable that anyone could make such an argument...that you ....had....not .... read.....

You do see, dear boy, how that does not make your position better, don't you? It's actually just as bad, if not worse, since now it's revealed that you agree that I was right all along. Yet you do not have the character to even admit that, or apologize for insultingly dismissing my argument as "so far from right..." etc., even when you hadn't read it. No no. what you choose to do is to claim it's me who is wrong, for missing the fact that you were "clearly" using the word evidence to mean proof.

Go look in the mirror if you want shock and horror.

[Forty Two]

Your immediate response was -- http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1677116 You insult me, again, and declare "It's simply not [evidence of absence], unless you are talking on a scale that means it is physically possible to investigate all space and definitively prove that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. This is fucking simple stuff. You show repeatedly you can't even grasp the basics of logic and arguments. It's a level of Dunning-Kruger that is embarrassing."

Oh cheers, thanks for reminding me of that. That's another post where i make it clear I am talking about the absence of proof. I even explicitly state it in a different way. No doubt with your history of parsing English you will fail to see this. Que sera.

1. That's not clear in that post at all.
2. That is not "another" post in which you make that clear - you only actually say that AFTER the above linked post, where you try to pretend that you meant the word proof, instead of evidence, all along.
3. even your use of the word proof here is wrong -- as Copi wrote, absence of proof can be positive proof of absence. What it can't be is "conclusive" proof of absence.

Grow a pair and have some class. Admit you were wrong when you were wrong instead of all this twisting and turning trying to save face. You're lying and you know it.

[pErvinalia]

Wall of text. Didn't read.

[pErvinalia]

Your immediate response was -- http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1677116 You insult me, again, and declare "It's simply not [evidence of absence], unless you are talking on a scale that means it is physically possible to investigate all space and definitively prove that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. This is fucking simple stuff. You show repeatedly you can't even grasp the basics of logic and arguments. It's a level of Dunning-Kruger that is embarrassing."

Oh cheers, thanks for reminding me of that. That's another post where i make it clear I am talking about the absence of proof. I even explicitly state it in a different way. No doubt with your history of parsing English you will fail to see this. Que sera.

1. That's not clear in that post at all.
2. That is not "another" post in which you make that clear - you only actually say that AFTER the above linked post, where you try to pretend that you meant the word proof, instead of evidence, all along.
3. even your use of the word proof here is wrong -- as Copi wrote, absence of proof can be positive proof of absence. What it can't be is "conclusive" proof of absence.

"As I predicted above..."

[rainbow]

Word to the wise now when dealing with you. When arguing with eRvin, always get an affirmation that he's actually read your argument. It seems quite likely that he simply bleats on and on without even bothering to try to understand what you're saying.

No point in engaging perVin on this topic.
He knows nothing and isn't prepared to admit it.