My responses to Michael Shermer

[catbasket]

If the event E is 'no evidence of object A (fifty three invisible pink unicorns tap-dancing naked on my dining table)', T1 is 'A doesn't exist' and T2 is 'A might exist', it actually seems that T2 is assuming more.

T'ai - I fixed your post.

ETA -

Do try and stay on topic.

Pot, meet kettle, meet T'ai, meet BHG.

 

[T'ai Chi]

T'ai - I fixed your post (snip)

Your argument would be better if you didn't edit ones' posts.

Actually, you posit an A with contradictory properties, so your example is nonsense. Something cannot be both invisible and pink. Try again.

 

[catbasket]

Your argument would be better if you didn't edit others' posts.

T'ai, I fixed your post.

Actually, you posit an A with contradictory properties, so your example is nonsense. Something cannot be both invisible and pink.

The invisible pink unicorns are only invisible to people (like you) who do not believe in them. Us bleevers see them, and they look pink.

Try again.

Pot, meet kettle, meet T'ai, meet BHG.

Edit for speeling

Edit(2) for wahey, 100 posts! WAHGERTY11!

 

[T'ai Chi]

The invisible pink unicorns are only invisible to people (like you) who do not believe in them. Us bleevers see them, and they look pink.

I'm sure making up stuff as you go really makes you think you have a good argument.

Of course, we know the entire history of the IPU, who dreamed it up, when, the purpose behind it, etc. We do not know the same about god(s).

Try again.

 

[articulett]

Is it JE?!

Maybe a WE network reprisentative?
Ha ha.

JE will channel the dead miners that Sylvia Browne bumbled about!

 

[articulett]

I'm sure making up stuff as you go really makes you think you have a good argument.

Of course, we know the entire history of the IPU, who dreamed it up, when, the purpose behind it, etc. We do not know the same about god(s).

Try again.

I think he learned the "making it up as you go" stuff from You and Vitor.

 

[articulett]

I think he learned the "making it up as you go" stuff from You and Vitor.

And in his example--since you admit yourself that there is evidence behind IPU--it appears that that theory is more likely to be true.

Just because your version of T1 is not definable--doesn't mean that this undefinable thing is more likely to exist.

You've even twisted occams razor to help you support your shakey beliefs--amazing.

I love seeing how people fool themselves...it's charming, really.

 

[CFLarsen]

Something cannot be both invisible and pink.

Prove it.

 

[Pyrrho]

http://www.colourware.co.uk/cpfaq.htm

 

[CFLarsen]

http://www.colourware.co.uk/cpfaq.htm

This FAQ concerns the measurement and control of coloured surfaces such as plastics, textiles, surface coatings etc.

Doesn't say anything about the surface of unicorns.

 

[Pyrrho]

Doesn't say anything about the surface of unicorns.

What's the point of challenging people to prove that "invisible" and "pink" are mutually exclusive? They are demonstrably exclusive of each other. We can argue that a pink object can be invisible if cloaked in total darkness, and then it can be argued that it isn't pink anymore. We can argue that it's invisible to us, yet visibly pink if we use special filters. Maybe the IPU is made of hydrogen, in which case it wouldn't be a unicorn, yet could still be pink using false color. We can play innumerable logical games, all of them irrelevant, all of them exercises in sophistry.

The "Invisible Pink Unicorn" is a rhetorical device intended to demonstrate the logical fallacy of appeal to ignorance. It does not exist in reality, and we all know this.

The IPU is invisible because it is a concept. It is "pink" because someone picked the word "pink" instead of blue, red, green, or PMS 458, yet we all know that concepts have no color as color is most widely defined.

 

[T'ai Chi]

The "Invisible Pink Unicorn" is a rhetorical device intended to demonstrate the logical fallacy of appeal to ignorance. It does not exist in reality, and we all know this.

I understand that some like to pretend though, and pretend that IPU is a devestating argument. Of course, it falls on its face because we know everything about it.

 

[Pyrrho]

I understand that some like to pretend though, and pretend that IPU is a devestating argument. Of course, it falls on its face because we know everything about it.

Actually, it is a very effective way of showing the absurdity of arguments such as "you can't prove XYZ isn't true", the old trick of demanding that skeptics disprove claims instead of the claimant providing evidence.

The IPU device shows that any absurd claim can be made. Proving it true is the burden of the claimant. The skeptic doesn't have to disprove anything.

In the classic form, the arguments follow these lines:

Claimaint: "Psychic Joe hears messages from the dead and you skeptics can't prove that he doesn't!" (Argument: you can't prove it isn't so, therefore it's so)

Skeptic: "Well, you can't prove that I don't have an Invisible Pink Unicorn in my garage, but that doesn't mean I have an Invisible Pink Unicorn in my garage."

Claimant: "LOL, everybody knows there's no such thing as Invisible Pink Unicorns!"

We can't prove there isn't a God. Similarly, we can't prove there aren't Invisible Pink Unicorns or Flying Spaghetti Monsters. Common sense tells us that there aren't, but if our basic claim is that anything is possible, well, then anything is possible.

IPU is often used to try to illustrate a simple logical concept to the willfully ignorant. If it fails, it is usually due to sheer obstinancy on the part of the willfully ignorant, not because the underlying argument is weak.

To take a real-life example, we can't prove that there aren't sea serpents in San Francisco Bay, but that doesn't make the pixelated video that has been offered as evidence into anything resembling evidence, let alone proof.

 

[Diamond]

Oh dear! Stand by for another blast from Diamond! This week's commentary is all about NASA. How could Phil Plait discuss a topic that's so obviously only to do with the USA? Doesn't he realize there's lots of countries out there with no space program at all whose citizens will be offended by discussion of such a US-centric topic in a Randi commentary?

Ouch. My tongue just penetrated my cheek!

Here's the blast. You have no idea why I wrote what I wrote.

 

[CFLarsen]

What's the point of challenging people to prove that "invisible" and "pink" are mutually exclusive? They are demonstrably exclusive of each other. We can argue that a pink object can be invisible if cloaked in total darkness, and then it can be argued that it isn't pink anymore. We can argue that it's invisible to us, yet visibly pink if we use special filters. Maybe the IPU is made of hydrogen, in which case it wouldn't be a unicorn, yet could still be pink using false color. We can play innumerable logical games, all of them irrelevant, all of them exercises in sophistry.

The "Invisible Pink Unicorn" is a rhetorical device intended to demonstrate the logical fallacy of appeal to ignorance. It does not exist in reality, and we all know this.

The IPU is invisible because it is a concept. It is "pink" because someone picked the word "pink" instead of blue, red, green, or PMS 458, yet we all know that concepts have no color as color is most widely defined.

Sure, it's a concept. But the point is: You can't determine how I "see" - experience - the IPU. If I see it as invisible and pink, then you are not to tell me that I am not experiencing this.

This would be tantamount to telling people that they are not talking to dead people. You can't do that, because it could be a possibility.

If I told you I could see infrared, would you believe me? That's invisible as well, but what if the receptors in my eyes showed the color as pink?

I understand that some like to pretend though, and pretend that IPU is a devestating argument. Of course, it falls on its face because we know everything about it.

You do?? Know? You know that the IPU doesn't exist? How can you determine that?

You argue the exact opposite point here, for Chrissakes!

 

[Pyrrho]

Sure, it's a concept. But the point is: You can't determine how I "see" - experience - the IPU. If I see it as invisible and pink, then you are not to tell me that I am not experiencing this.

This would be tantamount to telling people that they are not talking to dead people. You can't do that, because it could be a possibility.

If I told you I could see infrared, would you believe me? That's invisible as well, but what if the receptors in my eyes showed the color as pink?

That's an example of the sophistry I referred to earlier.

"Invisible Pink Unicorn" is a rhetorical device intended to show that any absurd claim can be made. Proving the claim is the burden of the claimant.

If you claim to see infrared, I would say, "Evidence, please." and "We can help devise a test to prove your claim."

Given what we know of the physiology of human vision, there's a very good chance you can't see in the infrared, but it's a testable claim. You'd have to prove it. I wouldn't have to disprove it.

If you claim to talk to the dead, I would say, "Evidence, please." and "We can help devise a test to prove your claim."

I can't prove that you don't have infrared vision. You can't prove that I don't have an Invisible Pink Unicorn in my garage.

 

[Pyrrho]

Here's the blast. You have no idea why I wrote what I wrote.

Explain yourself, then, and educate us.

 

[valis]

This was certainly true within some of the states (there was no religious test for FEDERAL government employees). Madison recognized this in his Remonstrance and intended that as people expanded out westward and moved around that these state-established churches would eventually dissolve.
I could not say which states had established churches (my educated guesses would be Pennsylvania and Maryland), but I do know the Northwest Ordinances (which would include Ohio) had its own version of the Establishment Clause.

But the point I am making is this. I get in a time machine and go back to 1790 I am going to see less religon in public and particularly government life, correct? And if I stop every ten years or so I will see how the republic started out with less overt religion in public life than today and how it has gradually been forced upon us by evil fundimentalists?

 

[RandFan]

What's the point of challenging people to prove that "invisible" and "pink" are mutually exclusive? They are demonstrably exclusive of each other. We can argue that a pink object can be invisible if cloaked in total darkness, and then it can be argued that it isn't pink anymore. We can argue that it's invisible to us, yet visibly pink if we use special filters. Maybe the IPU is made of hydrogen, in which case it wouldn't be a unicorn, yet could still be pink using false color. We can play innumerable logical games, all of them irrelevant, all of them exercises in sophistry.

The "Invisible Pink Unicorn" is a rhetorical device intended to demonstrate the logical fallacy of appeal to ignorance. It does not exist in reality, and we all know this.

The IPU is invisible because it is a concept. It is "pink" because someone picked the word "pink" instead of blue, red, green, or PMS 458, yet we all know that concepts have no color as color is most widely defined.

Thank you. How and why people don't get this rhetorical device to demonstrate a logical fallacy is beyond me. I'm not sure which is worse, appealing to ignorance or asking someone to prove that invisible unicorns can't also be pink.

Logic, it escapes most of us from time to time. Some more often than others.

 

[drfrank]

I always thought the pinkness of the IPU was an article of Faith, whereas the invisibility property was considered self-evident.