Quote:
Originally Posted by DNSB
Last time I looked, quite a few items had been proved by logic and not by evidence.
|
I suspect I'm going to be going up/down the thread here, so I'll start here.
Yes, absolutely. No argument means that whatever was proven, was an
impossibility in the reverse. That's logic for ya.
For example, one of ApK's examples, how his daughter that was not yet born thus
could not have been Kennedy's assassin.
Okay, fine. You could try to argue that that's "proving" the impossible, but it's not--you've proven the
inverse. She didn't exist until Year X and thus, while she could have done X things during her lifetime, she could not do things outside of it. Right?
Back later to yammer about the difference between evidence and proof.
Hitch