Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Ghosts, Haunting & Beings from other Realms
Believers or skeptics
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Kairos" data-source="post: 184689" data-attributes="member: 10263"><p>Basically you are trying to prove a positive statement (<x> does not exist) by appealing to your lack of data. That only really works when you know the entire population of whatever it is you are observing. As you get closer to 100% observation your confidence in that positive statement increases.</p><p></p><p>But that's not how you are using it.</p><p></p><p></p><p>The analog would be like saying a defendant is guilty because we can't find evidence of his innocence. It just doesn't make any sense and is obviously fallacious. I am not sure why so-called "skeptics" keep repeating it, but it really sounds stupid to rational people.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Kairos, post: 184689, member: 10263"] Basically you are trying to prove a positive statement (<x> does not exist) by appealing to your lack of data. That only really works when you know the entire population of whatever it is you are observing. As you get closer to 100% observation your confidence in that positive statement increases. But that's not how you are using it. The analog would be like saying a defendant is guilty because we can't find evidence of his innocence. It just doesn't make any sense and is obviously fallacious. I am not sure why so-called "skeptics" keep repeating it, but it really sounds stupid to rational people. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Ghosts, Haunting & Beings from other Realms
Believers or skeptics
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top