On Aug 24, 6:39=A0pm, ernie...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Ernie Primeau) wrote:
> asshole farrel is sorry that she cannot post proof that my method does
> not work. Ernie
http://www.kookpedia.net/index.php/Ernie_Primeau#Ernie.27s_.27Progress_and_=
Victory_Declaration.27_Posts
If asshole farrel could post proof that my method does not work she (I
call this the "Asshole Farrel can't prove a negative" post.)
Typical version:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.baldspot/msg/5bb689e9fb=
495d1e
"If asshole farrel could post proof that my method does not work she
would do so instead of posting bull**** using my name. Ernie"
Debunking: Anyone with a philosophy of science background? Similar to
the use of circular logic, the use of an appeal to negative proof is
done because although the logic is fallacious, it's internally
consistent: while it is true no one can ultimately prove Ernie's
'Pluck 'n' Grow' method doesn't work (including "asshole farrel" or
anyone else), this turns the logic of scientific inquiry (which is
predicated on positive proof) on it's head. In other words, the burden
of proof isn't on everyone else to prove that Ernie's method doesn't
work (which, it obviously doesn't), it's for Ernie to offer convincing
proof that it does... obviously, something he's utterly incapable of
doing.
|
