Coincidences?

[11_Panama_]

Not all things can be proven due to a lack of information or evidence, does that make it not exist? Like the old saying..."A tree falls in the woods, no one is there to hear it...does it make a sound?" Common sense would say, "Yes, it does"...but Crater would ask for evidence, since I wasn't there. Come on Crater....you seem like a smart individual, why do you constantly have to play that "Do you have evidence" game? How many crimes are committed by criminals where lack of "evidence" sets them free? Yet they were guilty. While you will ask me for evidence to back up that claim, I would tell you that common sense tells me that it's true. The naive person would be the one that believes that no mistakes were ever made by the judicial system. You get my drift Crater? I would appreciate it if you stop being condescending, you're kind of starting to piss me off.

[haasd0gg]

My point was missed. The mafia was a myth... until it was proven to be real.

[Darth Crater]

haas - I'm not sure what your point is, sorry. The case you list differs in that there absolutely was evidence of the mafia existing. You could observe actions and trends that were consistent with the mafia existing. If Panama is right, we should be able to do the same here. Apologies if you were actually agreeing with me.

Not all things can be proven due to a lack of information or evidence, does that make it not exist? Like the old saying..."A tree falls in the woods, no one is there to hear it...does it make a sound?" Common sense would say, "Yes, it does"...but Crater would ask for evidence, since I wasn't there. Come on Crater....you seem like a smart individual, why do you constantly play that "Do you have evidence" game?

Effectively? If we have no evidence for something, it may as well not exist. Until we can identify some way in which reality differs because it exists, it does not matter whether it exists and we shouldn't waste time seriously considering it. If whatever conspiracy you're advocating for has affected the world, in a manner distinct from how it would work if they didn't exist, I'm asking for what they've done and how you know. If you have this, I want to know it and want to believe they exist. If they haven't affected the world, though... how could you possibly know they exist, and why do you care?

As for trees... there's plenty of evidence that when trees fall they usually make sound. Not just eyewitness accounts, but video, and physical laws concerning forces and pressure. Thus, it's likely that the tree made sound when it fell. This is pretty much an automatic process, of course - the brain doesn't really have to spend time on it because it's cached the answer already. Maybe you saw a tree fall, maybe you saw a video, maybe you heard the "tree falls in the woods" idea, but you learned that falling trees make noise. When you remember this, you don't think about the evidence all over again, so you call it "common sense" even though you originally learned it via evidence.

Speaking of it - "common sense" is an incredibly dangerous thing. It's basically all of the beliefs that you don't think about. It can tell you that of course touching a hot stove will hurt, or that of course 2 plus 2 is 4. It can also tell you that of course the world is flat, or that of course those guys with darker skin are inferior. When we use common sense, we don't think about how strong our evidence for forming the belief was, or compare it to any new evidence. We just work from an unspoken assumption that the belief is true. This is necessary for us to function, but not always a good thing. Not a criticism of you, here; just a convenient place for a general warning. To myself as much as to anyone else.

How many crimes are committed by criminals where lack of "evidence" sets them free? Yet they were guilty. While you will ask me for evidence to back up that claim, I would tell you that common sense tells me that it's true. The naive person would be the one that believes that no mistakes were ever made by the judicial system. You get my drift Crater?

Alright - maybe the problem stems from our different definitions of evidence. Judicial "evidence" is not what I'm talking about here. For example, suppose that Bob was killed. His girlfriend, Alice, was known to hate him and publicly claim she wished he was dead. Legally, this evidence is not strong enough to convict her of murder, because we have tenets like "innocent until proven guilty" (well, really "until the evidence of guilt is strong enough") to minimize harm to innocents. Nevertheless, whether she actually killed him or not, those facts are evidence for her killing him. Of course, there should be plenty of other evidence of varying strengths available, and those indicating the truth should ultimately be stronger. Does this make sense?

EDIT:

I would appreciate if you being condescending, you're kind of starting to piss me off.

Not really sure what you mean here. I freely admit that I am not good at managing my overall tone, especially when people persistently refuse to present logical arguments or functional evidence. I suspect people prefer this over incoherent rage, at least. If you observe any factual errors in what I say, please point them out as I am doing.

[Col. Hstar]

I'm just going to throw this in the ring. Evidence also depends on the person who is viewing it. For instance does the evidence of this picture show that this glass is half full of water or half empty. And for the sake of argument it is water.

Yeah I know this example is usually used for looking at whether a person is optimistic or pesimistic but that's the point. We all look at evidence differently. Evidence is not always a hard white line that marks a boundry.

[11_Panama_]

Your quote Crater- That said, if you'd like to provide evidence for once, I'm willing to listen...

I'm starting to think that this is how you get your jollies. As I said before, I don't come here to argue, yet you seem bent on making arguments out of posts that are meant to be fun and/or trivial. Chill out and try to have fun, instead of making everything a debate. I come here to relax and have fun. I don't think I have to justify anything I post to you. Stop being so confrontational. Take a freaking break for Christ sakes.

[Darth Crater]

Homestar - I see your reading comprehension remains about the same. The picture shows that the glass is half full and half empty because those are the same thing. It does not show that the glass is entirely full or entirely empty. People can interpret evidence differently, sure. The evidence itself does not change.

Panama - you're right. I'll reevaluate tomorrow and try to explain things from my end. In the meantime, my statement remains - if you have any actual evidence of this I want to be aware it.

[11_Panama_]

Panama - you're right. I'll reevaluate tomorrow and try to explain things from my end. In the meantime, my statement remains -if you have any actual evidence of this I want to be aware it.

[FaiL.?]

[(SWGO)Max]

Panama, I have seen everything in that post in a forwarded email. its very intresting stuff, though most the time im just conffuzled at the end of it.

:lol:

I know someone is going to same the same thing to me but... hadrian sometimes i wonder if you post just to get your comments stats higher.

[FaiL.?]

Panama, I have seen everything in that post in a forwarded email. its very intresting stuff, though most the time im just conffuzled at the end of it.

:lol:

I know someone is going to same the same thing to me but... hadrian sometimes i wonder if you post just to get your comments stats higher.

Of course not, dude. I thought that this was amusing.