I just got spam from "doesnt exist." I think it was trying to take my money.

Narrator?

it's covered somewhere in here: [link] right?

false analogy?

Uh, what's weird about that?

Yeah, it's your standard, run-of-the-mill contrapositive.

Timelies all!

Happy Birthday Flea!

Yay for msbelle and mac!

Woke up this morning with a pain in my hip(actually in the area where the leg meets the hip). Actually, I woke up =because= of the pain. I didn't think I was that restless a sleeper.

Also,

It follows that every observation of something which is not black and also not a raven is evidence that ravens are black.

No it doesn't.

from the fallacy link: Shifting the burden of proof: challenging the audience to disprove the argument.

Anyone have an example of this? I think my brain is skipping. I don't get it.

No it doesn't.

If the implication means that both statements are equivalent, proof of one is proof of the other. Which is where I'd start to unravel the whole thing.

I'm trying to read the article, and it's irritating me. I scooted back to the digg page that took me there and just one person notes the dumbness of the opening paragraph. They say:

For anyone who's curious about the intro to the article: The observation that "all ravens are black" is logically equivalent to "all non-black things are not ravens" is trivial. Hempel's point, not mentioned in the article, was that any theory of scientific confirmation that had it that statements of the form "all As are B" are (partially confirmed) by an observation of an A that is B (e.g. any thoery that has it that each black raven observed further confirms the claim that all ravens are black) would logically have to have it that each not-B not-A also confirms it (e.g. observing any non-black non-raven would confirm "all ravens are black")

Anyone have an example of this? I think my brain is skipping. I don't get it.

ita: All cats are black
Allyson: Bullshit
ita: Prove it.

Okay, that's trite. But my basic pov is that if you state it, the burden of proof is on you. In more abstract scenarios with a lot more talking, the above does happen way too often.

Anyone have an example of this? I think my brain is skipping. I don't get it.

I can't think of a good example.

OK, "Aliens live among us. You don't agree? Then how do you know they don't?" I mean, the logical flaw is obvious in that example. But as a rhetorical device, the flaw doesn't have to be obvious, and a non-obvious one would make a better example.

I think you can go to any political blog and find examples of it Allyson. People who employ it tend to make me want to spew so I avoid them.