From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Sat Jun 14 2003 - 18:37:54 MDT
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote,
> Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> > This tactic can never add information to a debate, while it can
> > frequently lead to misunderstandings and accusations of
> > misrepresentation. I maintain that this source of information is
> > unsupportable and should not be used in a rational debate where the
> > person in question is available for comment if they so choose.
>
> I agree; but this is because negative evidence is weak and divided among
> many possible explanations, not because taking the negative indicator as
> evidence is a logic error.
Agreed about the negative evidence.
But what do you call it when somebody uses this evidence that is "weak and
divided among many possible explanations" and claims a conclusion as being
"strong and pointing to only one explanation"? That is where the logic
error comes in. The proven "conclusion" is not as strong as is claimed, and
does not prove the single solution as claimed. Am I invalid in calling this
"conclusion" a logic error? (I.E. the logical proof fails to support the
conclusion claimed as proven.)
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISM, CISSP, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC Certified InfoSec Manager, Certified IS Security Pro, NSA-certified InfoSec Assessor, IBM-certified Security Consultant, SANS-cert GSEC <HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 14 2003 - 18:48:05 MDT