Claims which contradict existing proven claims are false until proven true.

[Zhavric]

I've grown tired of Fonceai's trollish arguments that attempt to dispute this very basic logical concept. Since you failed to address these claims specifically in the other thread that you lost, let's look at them here:

Claims which agree with existing proven claims default to "probably true" and require little evidence.

Example: "The professional NFL football player is playing football" we can say is probably true.

Claims which neither agree or disagree with existing proven claims default to "unknown" and require some evidence.

Example: "The professional NFL football player is playing baseball" is a claim that is unknown and requires evidence.

Claims which contradict existing proven claims default to "false until proven true" and requires additional evidence.

Example: "The professional NFL football player is female." This is false because it's proven that NFL players are male. The idea of a woman playing in the NFL requires evidence before it can be accepted. It is neither "unknown" nor valid.

Neither a question of the scientific method nor a logical fallacy, this simple logic is elementary. We must also pay special attention to context in this sort of debate because it is context that informs us of claims already established (such as the fact only male NFL players exist).

[Fonceai]

Claims which contradict existing proven claims default to "false until proven true" and requires additional evidence.

How is this not the same thing as ad ignorantiam?

[Zhavric]

Argument from Ignorance (sometimes Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, from the Latin for "argument (aimed) at ignorance") is an informal logical fallacy where a participant draws a positive conclusion from a lack of contradictory evidence, frequently in an area where no such evidence can reasonably be expected. The most general structure of this argument runs something like the following:

1. It cannot be shown that P is not true
2. Therefore, P.

A simple variation on this is

1. It cannot be shown that P is true
2. Therefore, not-P.

This is a fallacy because the simple fact that no one knows how to contradict a statement does not mean that a statement is true. In areas such as science and technology, where new discoveries and inventions are always being made, new findings may arise at any time.

Emphasis mine.

Source.

In fact, the argument from ignorance is far closer to your stance. My source lists the example: "No one has ever proven that the Yeti does not exist; therefore, I believe in the Yeti." This isn't so far from "No one has ever proven that god does not exist; therefor, I believe god may exist."

Please reconcile "a lack of contradictory evidence" with "existing proven claims" or concede the point.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Z Please reconcile "a lack of contradictory evidence" with "existing proven claims" or concede the point.

Because a claim, even proven, is never evidence for another claim. Nor can it be opposing evidence.

Every claim is independent of other claims.

The origin of ad ignorantiam is because you are automatically coming to a conclusion without testing it.

You are either...

1. Pointing to the proven opposite and therefore concluding that the current claim must be false.

2. Pointing to the unproven opposite and therefore concluding that the current claim must be true.

You have to test every claim.

If you do not test your claim in any way, if you resort to citing a proven opposite, then you are committing the fallacy.

You like posting quizzes, here's one for you.

Here is my claim:

Green and Blue make Aquamarine

Is that claim:

A) Correct and proven.
B) Unknown.
C) False and proven.

[Zhavric]

Your argumentation fails. Here's why. If I state that a claim which contradicts existing proven claims is "unknown" it means I am challenging the validity of those existing proven claims. We HAVE to take into account what is already established nor do we erase all knowledge and evidence for each and every claim.

Green and Blue make Aquamarine Is that claim: A) Correct and proven. B) Unknown. C) False and proven.

hahahahahaa Being hopelessly colorblind, you've hamstrung me on this question.

I'm not actually sure I've ever seen "aquamarine". You're going to have to use another example as I honestly don't actually know the answer. People tell me "this color and that color make this other color" but I never remember because colors flip around for me quite a bit. It's made doing the wiring in my new place a real adventure...

Keeping in mind that I don't actually know the answer...

If blue and green DO make aquamarine and ALWAYS make aquamarine then the claim is correct and proven.

If blue and green DO NOT make aquamarine and NEVER make aquamarine then the claim is false.

Once we establish the claim, it's established, Fonce. Why do you have this strange desire to declare we don't know things when we actually know things? This know-nothing stance of yours is untenable.

[Zhavric]

It looks like Fonceai conceded this argument here.

If you change your mind, I'll be happy to continue. Until then this thread is done.

[Fonceai]

Now that I'm not messing with any persona characteristics for the purpose of research, I'm going to make this one post and ask a very simple question.

The question requires an answer consisting of two words. No explanation necessary.

Here it is:

When you write "Claims which contradict existing proven claims default to "false until proven true" and requires additional evidence.", are you arguing that this is logically valid or scientifically valid?

"Logically valid" means that it is correct and can be illustrated through a proof.

"Scientifically valid" means that it is empirically correct.

Please do whatever research you feel necessary to be sure you can answer the question with a two-word answer, because how I respond will depend on that two-word answer.

[Zhavric]

Logical claims which contradict existing proven claims default to "false until proven true" and requires additional evidence.

Example:
Given X = True
"X = False" is false until proven true.

Scientific claims which contradict existing proven claims default to "false until proven true" and requires additional evidence.

Example:
Given energy cannot be created.
"Energy can be created" is false until proven true.

This is why I state "claims" and why your categories are not necessary.

[Fonceai]

The categories are necessary for one single reason.

Using symbolic logic, then your statement is correct. You don't even need to say "until proven true" at all. Using boolean algebra...

P = T
Q = ~P
Therefore Q = F

Using science, then your statement is also correct. The "until proven true" is also an accurate qualifier.

The problem, as I see it, is when the "proven claims" are not actually proven.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fonceai The problem, as I see it, is when the "proven claims" are not actually proven.

That's outside the universe of discourse. You agree that we can prove things. "Proven claims" are, by definition, proven claims. Anything else is a change of context which changes what we're discussing (proven claims to something other than proven claims).

The argument of whether or not something is already proven is quite outside what we're discussing here. Regardless, if something is proven and we turn out to be wrong about it, we'll know using logic & evidence.

[Fonceai]

Then this thread is over.

I think your statement is valid in specific contexts, and there are some where it is logically valid but otherwise untenable.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fonceai and there are some where it is logically valid but otherwise untenable.

Nope, there are none. I challenge you to give me an example of what you've hinted at above.

[Fonceai]

Anything that is based on opinion and not fact.

---

A better way to say it is that when the "proven claims" aren't really proven.

We can what-if this to death, but it would be stupid. When the "proven claims" are themselves unproven, then the overlying statement (the topic) is invalid.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fonceai Anything that is based on opinion and not fact. --- A better way to say it is that when the "proven claims" aren't really proven. We can what-if this to death, but it would be stupid. When the "proven claims" are themselves unproven, then the overlying statement (the topic) is invalid.

I see you misunderstand absolute statements. I'm right there with you on when "proven claims" aren't really proven, but we both know your argument won't end there.

Quote by: you science declares evidenced scientific laws changeable because they may be disproven later on. science does not give "final" answers, only "current" answers. Using science as a foundation for argument is the wrong way to go. When science changes its laws and conclusions, your argument is gone.

This is from the debate you were outvoted on.

There is no such thing as a "proven claim that's not really a proven claim". There are proven claims and there are claims which were thought to be proven, but later on are replaced by more accurate stances.* Your post-modernist "everything is subjective" stance is without merit. Science has proven many things. If and only if these things turn out to be disproven then and only then will we need to change a particular argument. All scientists understand this.

So, until evidence comes along disproving what we know to be true about the creation of energy, an omnipotent being is still false until proven true. Anything else (like calling an omnipotent being "unknown") is intellectually dishonest.




*This replacement, needless to state, happens because evidence is presented.

[Fonceai]

Nice attitude.

Stick to commenting on what I write in this thread and stop dragging other stuff from other threads.

The only reason I posted here at all is because the trend of posting behavior I was using previously got the results I was looking for.

I don't post that way anymore.

So...

Reply to my previous post again, please, but this time lose your habitual attitude. I no longer entertain your brand of conduct if you choose to exhibit it here.

Consider this a clean slate.

[Zhavric]

What's left to discuss? This is a debate site. We're expected to provide links to support our arguments from external sources. Why is something you wrote off limits? Do you agree or disagree with the quoted statement you made?

This honestly looks like a debating trick on your part. We've established that you don't consider scientifically proven claims to be proven so it looks like you're willing to agree with me now so you can later on state "Oh, well since X isn't really proven / could change we can't say something is false because it doesn't really contradict an existing proven claim."

I'm not willing to let you do that, Fonceai. I'm all for second chances & clean slates, but you're a wily debator. Understand that there are no such things as "proven claims which aren't really proven". It's a paradox. Instead, there are proven claims which will later on be disproven with logic & evidence.

"Energy can be created" is a false statement because we've proven energy cannot be created. When and only when it's demonstrated that energy can be created will the statement become unknown or true.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Z What's left to discuss? This is a debate site. We're expected to provide links to support our arguments from external sources. Why is something you wrote off limits? Do you agree or disagree with the quoted statement you made?

Because my previous behavior right up to my ban was intentional and designed to gather information. You can quote me on it if you want, but you might as well be trying to quote the lines of a specific role and using them against the actor.

Quote by: Z This honestly looks like a debating trick on your part.

No, no trick. That's why I'm telling you that if you quote me from earlier you're going to get really bored really fast.

I could turn this around and say that now that you can't find something specific to pick apart and argue with me, you're going to try to dig up past statements in order to give yourself an excuse to argue.

Quote by: Z Understand that there are no such things as "proven claims which aren't really proven". It's a paradox.

You weren't paying attention.

I stated that the problem is when one person states "proven claims" about claims that aren't really proven.

Just because a person says it's proven doesn't mean it's really proven.

Quote by: Z "Energy can be created" is a false statement because we've proven energy cannot be created. When and only when it's demonstrated that energy can be created will the statement become unknown or true.

I already answered you about "proven claims" being opinions and not fact.

Do you want to nitpick over one example?

First, clarify your statement. It's too open-ended. Right now I can prove you wrong with a magnet and a piece of wire.

If you don't want to play this game, then say what you want to say and don't make little piecemeal statements that lead you to a bigger point.

If you want to make this about your statement being valid as proof against the existence of a deity then by all means go for it. You won't like the resulting argument.

If you want to stick to the progression of this thread so far, you'll notice I already wrote that the statement is valid in the realm of logic, and can be proven correct with symbolic logic.

I've also stated that it's true in relation to scientific topics, especially with the "until proven" qualifier.

Where that leaves you is with a statement that fails when based on opinion.

It's up to you... do you want to stick to your own topic, which is already pretty much settled (and leaves you left to argue about the statement being invalid when based on opinion) or do you want to derail your own thread and turn this into an argument about how your statement disproves the existence of deities?

[Zhavric]

Just because a person says it's proven doesn't mean it's really proven.

You're changing the context.

"Claims which contradict claims which aren't really true are unknown." =/= "Claims which contradict existing proven claims are false until proven true."

I'm still waiting on an example.

[Fonceai]

You're changing the context.

Hardly, it's you who is failing to understand.

When someone is calling something a "proven claim" that isn't a proven claim is what I'm writing about.

Besides, I very clearly answered you that an example is any time when the "proven claim" is an opinion.

"I love my wife"
Claim A.

"Fonceai does not love his wife."
Claim B.

Claim B contradicts Claim A.

Is Claim A proven? Is the proof for Claim A enough proof for everyone who could address that claim?

Those questions alone mean that someone cannot say that claim B is false until proven true... because claim A is not proven.

That's what I meant when I stated that opinions were an example.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fonceai Hardly, it's you who is failing to understand. When someone is calling something a "proven claim" that isn't a proven claim ...

When someone is calling something a "proven claim" that isn't a proven claim then we aren't dealing with a proven claim. Period. The statement you and I have been arguing over for the last month only applies to existing proven claims. That's its' absolute meaning.

Neither is this the problem you make it out to be. If an existing claim turns out to be false, how do we know that? We know through evidence.

So, your example poses no exception:

"I love my wife"
Claim A.

"Fonceai does not love his wife."
Claim B.

Claim B contradicts Claim A and is thus false until proven true. If claim A is false, then Claim be does not contradict claim A.

Love, by the by, isn't nearly as subjective as many people allege it. I have little doubt that your wife has done and continues to do things that cause you to have evidence that you can trust her / respect her / admire her / etc. Even "love at first sight" requires some conversation & discussion... and is easily negated by specific actions (cheating, etc.).

Things are either proven or they're not, Fonceai. I have too much respect for you as a debator to think that you'd subsribe to post-modernist "everything is relative / we can't know anything for sure" drivel.