Attention numbskulls! Get edumakated right here, y'all.

The BBQ Pit
141

No, he was actually claiming that it somehow improved sound quality. When I asked how this could be possible, he just shrugged and said something like, “It just does”, then directed me to some website where he first heard about this.

Also, “you cannot prove a negative”:

Okay, I need my ignorance fought then, because I’ve always been told that this was true. It was explained to me in this way:
Let’s say I’m trying to prove that crows can be white. All I have to do to prove this is find one white crow. But if I’m trying to prove that crows cannot be white, then I would have to find every single crow ever all the way back to the beginning of crows and onward to the very end, and show that there never was or will be a single white one. Hence, you cannot prove a negative.

Now, this seems reasonable to me, but this could be just a vast oversimplification or I could be misinterpreting it. Help?

142

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

I am apalled Michael! Natalie Portman holds that title.

  1. snopes.com is right, you are wrong.
143

BlackKnight: Unless and until you read my entire post, I can’t (and won’t) recognize your attempts to debate me.

ratty:

That is correct: You cannot prove a negative outside a formal system because you’d need essentially infinite amounts of evidence. Since no corpus of real knowledge is complete, the ability to do so fades into nothingness.

Of course, you could define a crow to be black. If you do that, you’ve made the statement `There are no white crows.’ a tautology: It’s obvious from the definition. However, crows are not so defined. An albino crow, for example, is a possible example of a white crow. Once you start playing with definitions like that, however, you’re moving away from the physical world and back up into a formal system, and we already know it’s possible to prove ~A in a formal system.

144

I’ve read it three or four times. All of it. Then I read it again. Willing to recognize my attempts to debate you now?

First off, it was claimed that it is impossible to prove a negative. I showed that this was false. You seem to want to disagree with me, yet you also admit that it is possible to prove a negative, at least sometimes and in some ways. In other words, what I said was correct.

Moreover, the claim that it is impossible to prove a negative in practical real world situations is also false.

The example with the crows is misleading. By the same argument, it is sometimes impossible prove a positive. For example, if I make the claim, “Every crow is black”, I could (practically speaking) never have enough evidence to prove that claim. There are also negative claims that can be proved with reasonable levels of evidence in the real world. For example, consider the claim, “This crow is not white.” It is a negative, but simple inspection will reveal that it is, indeed, not white.

It is true that the claim, “Crows cannot be white” cannot practically be absolutely proved in the real world. However, this in no way supports the proposition that “You can’t prove a negative.” Giving an example of a negative that cannot be proved does not allow us to conclude that no negative can be proved.

145

BlackKnight: OK. When someone takes quotes out of context and only addresses them to the exclusion of all else, I make the normal assumptions.

As for the rest of it: I made no claims about proving a positive. I simply stated (wrongly) that it was impossible to prove a negative. I was mistaken, except to the extent that one could argue that the evidence of the senses does not constitute a proof in the formal sense.

So, does proof extend to the physical world? Or is it simply a construct used to determine the validity of statements within a formal system? The scientist and the logician would both argue for the latter, as a matter of fact: Science is a series of approximations, which may or may not be borne out by the evidence. If they are not, they are replaced. The concept of a proof in science is either nonexistent or modified by the knowledge that evidence is always incomplete.

So you’ve … well, maybe not convinced me. But you’ve shown me that I was wrong, and that proving a negative outside of a formal system is possible for some definitions of prove.

So, why is asking someone to prove a negative so damning to your case? Because in the most general sense, it is often impossible. As ratty understands, in fact, and as I noted in my prior posts. It’s only when you replace generalities with specifics that it becomes possible (This crow is not black, etc.).

146

I only nitpicked your spelling once, bringing it up again is pretty lame

I never claimed to be perfect.

I understood that you were trying to be witty, but you were wrong, dictionary.com is not as valid of a source as oxford dictionary or MW. Therefore your 3rd point has no wheels.

If you are tired of nitpicking already, I suggest you leave this thread, which happens to be ABOUT nitpicking. Take your anti-intellectualism (except when you do it) out of here.

147

In the most general sense it is impossible, but this has nothing to do with it being a negative. It’s impossible to prove a universal positive (e.g., “All X are Y”) in a non-formal sense unless we define things in a way that makes it so. Likewise with universal negatives. (“No X are Y”)

In my opinion, the saying should be, “You cannot deduce a universal statement from empirical data, although you can often provide overwhelming empirical data to support the statement inductively.” That’s much more wordy though. :slight_smile:

148

Cannot is always one word.

Percent should always be spelled out.

Accept = to receive. Except = with the exclusion of. Please do not post a sign above a cash register that reads “No Checks Excepted” and expect me to avoid asking “Does that mean that you accept all checks?”

Altogether = thoroughly. All together = everyone or everthing in one place.

Whose = possessive form of who. Who’s = contraction for who is.

Bumper stickers that say “If you ain’t a cowboy, you ain’t shit” are actually saying “If you are a cowboy, you are shit.” Stupid shits.

According to Simon & Schuster Handbook for Writers; “When adding -'s could lead to tongue-twisting pronunciation, practice varies. All writers use the apostrophe. Some writers do not add the s; others do, for consistency with other practices.” Either is acceptable, as long as you are consistent in each piece of writing.

149

Great! ** Neither did I.** Bringing it up in the first place is pretty lame. Who am I to you? Find something better to do. If you have an issue with content of my post, fine. But get off your little nitpicking pedestal.

:confused:

Let me make this clear- it is not anti-intellectualism, it is anti-snobbery! Okay? Okay.

For the 3rd time, I am all for education. Lord knows I wish more people were intellectual. The world would be a better place.

My first post, which no one forced you to respond to, had no nit picks in it, so I’ll stay here as long as I want, monsieur.

Oh, and I was not referring to the validity of any given dictionary. You knew what I meant, as would most people. That is what I was referring to.

Now, do leave me alone.

150

The Harry Potter series is NOT Satanic, nor does it teach kids sorcery. It’s an extremely well-written set of books for all ages, and those who refuse to read it on the grounds that it’s “evil” are truly missing out.

151

Natalie Portman

vs.

Jennifer Connelly

I think I’ve made my point.

152

There are nude pictures of Natalie Portman.

153

Besides, how do you think Kirsten’ll feel when she finds out you’re two-timing her?

154

Yes. Yes, you have.

155

<Glances down>

Yes, I see that you have.

156

There have been countless video games with horribly garbled English. Obsessing over the intro of one obscure shooter (which wasn’t even in the original arcade version) is just silly.

Bill Buckner’s error occurred when the game was tied, so even if he made the play, it would’ve only forced an extra inning. The real blame for the loss belongs to the pitcher who blew the save. If he hadn’t <<COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY WASTED A FREAKING THREE RUN LEAD>>, Buckner woudln’t have had to make that play at all.

Whether or not e-mail is your medium, hurling insults, putting up incredbly disgusting photos, and filling half the damn message with incomprehensible gibberish are not effective sales tactics.

Michael Jordan accomplished jack without Scottie Pippen and Phil Jackson, not to mention more than few superstar-friendly refs. To claim that he won those six rings by himself is ludicrous.

Enya is no more a pop singer than Britney Spears is a Catholic nun.

There is no legitimate “national champion” in Divsion I-A college football, and there never will be. Get over it.

When Andre Agassi said “Image is everything,” he was referring to a camera. He did not mean that he was never going to develop his tennis game.

Tennis has no “majors”. Only golf has those.

It’s possible to be thrilled at the capture of Saddam Hussein and still not like the idea of spending billions of dollars and hundreds of lives on a directionless melee that has yet to produce tangible benefits for America and has no end in sight.

Repeating a lie over and over doesn’t make it true. Tricking millions of people into believing a lie doesn’t make it true. Saying a lie with great conviction doesn’t make it true.

The moderator can ban you for any reason, and there’s nothing you can do about it. Deal with it.

Every manga and anime company in the country makes a number of minor alterations to account for cultural and linguistic differences. There’s nothing at all unusal about Tokyopop’s handling of Initial D.

Sure, Tupac Shakur said some inflammatory things. Yes, he was well-liked and respected by unsavory types. That does not somehow justify shooting him dead on the street.

Bill Clinton is not a liberal. Take a look at all the things he actually did while in office. Bob Dole could’ve done the same.

And if the Academy had such a huge problem with mildly controversial acceptance speeches, they shouldn’t have given Halle Berry and Michael Moore the damn awards in the first place. :slight_smile:

157

My, this thread sure is lame.

158

It is rather, isn’t it. Sorry about that. I had intended it for great and undeniable truths, but it has now descended into arguments about Bill Buckner (who he?) and Tokyopop’s (sorry?) handling of “Initial D” (come again?). And the ubiquitous Bill Gates-bashing.

159

My little nitpicking pedestal? Uhh, have you been paying attention, I HAVE found something wrong with the content of your post- It was factually wrong.

You were wrong, it doesn’t matter if you people knew what you meant, thats isn’t the point. If you are going to go on about how people in college are snobs, then you should perhaps not be snobby yourself. Admit it- “I was wrong, I didn’t know what sour grapes really meant.”

And sour grapes is different from the world cool. Cool is a slang term, Sour grapes is a literary term. Apples and oranges I am afraid.

Go ahead and stay as long as you want (in the thread), I will continue to call you out on your erronous statments. You, on the other hand, just keep digging yourself in deeper.

160

Well, r_k, I got me some edumacation out of it. Thanks to everybody who chimed in on the ‘you can’t prove a negative’ assertion.