--- Adam Gottschalk <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> on 10/15/00 00:35, Steve at [log in to unmask] wrote:
> 
> > The burden falls on you due to the logical impossibility of proving a
> > negative.
> > 
> > Steve
> 
> Did you get that out of some strange text book? I mean I've read some
> logic
> and ethics and math and stuff, but I've never come across this notion. I
> can't prove that something is not true or that something is not
> "correct"?

Try these links

http://rkba.org/libertarian/king/Fallacies
http://www.dissension.com/logic/provenegative.html


> That's one of the main aspects of peer review in science. Some one comes

No peer review is designed to make sure that articles satisfy certain
criteria, not that the reviewer sits there and tries to discredit the
research.  This is why you see a paper making claim X then another paper
that counters that claim with supporting evidence.



> up
> with a theory and her peers aim to poke holes in it and prove that
> something
> is _not_ the case. I must be missing something, not only because I see

First don't confuse falsification with proving a negative.

Second falsification is not about proving anything.  In fact, the
Popperian view of falsification can never prove anything.  Any claim is
merely waiting to be falsified, i.e. waiting for that bit of data that
makes it untrue.


> no
> logical impossibility in proving a negative (that something is not
> xyz...for
> example I am sure that I could prove, unless you want to get really
> cosmological, that I am not you), but more importantly I am not trying
> to do
> any such thing (at least not primarily). I am trying to argue for the
> existence of (some sort of) moral life, or what I think should be
> considered
> a moral life, on the part of animals.

Right you are making a positive claim, but then turn around and ask me to
prove for every type of animal, everywhere that they don't lead moral
lives.  How about this, sharks don't think.  Not like humans, dogs,
chimps, or dolphins.  Thus, to claim that they act in a moral fashion as
you have described, i.e. considering what set of moral principles to
follow, is silly.  Now, for you...you have to show an example of a shark
that chose a different set of moral principles...say a shark becoming a
vegan. <grin>

 
> You imply maybe that I am simply trying to prove that animals are not
> mere
> machines. Implicit in your implication then is that the norm is to
> reckon
> that animals are machines, and are not self-aware and have no sense of
> any
> sort of morals (regardless of how radically "different" we might see
> them).

I am not implying they are machines.  This is not an either-or.  If I
don't accept your first claim, it does not mean that I automatically have
to accept your second claim.


> On the contrary I think many, many people naturally understand that
> there is
> "intrinsic value" in animals. We have very strong laws against animal
> abuse
> (and not just because the politicians thought they would we be a neat
> idea),

Again, any evidence of this.  A politician standing up and saying abusing
animals is wrong is going to look good to lots of pet owners. <grin>


> even farm animal abuse; folks have very "morally imbued" relationships
> with
> their pets. My sense from all my experiences is that the norm in fact is
> to
> sense awareness and emotion and intelligence in animals as damned
> obvious.

Again, I think you might be lumping way too much in here.  You want me to
believe that all animals have self awareness and emotions?  Maybe animals
with more developed brains such as dolphins, dogs, chimps, but all of
them?


> My point is that if I take such to be the norm, I am trying to prove its
> efficacy to those who would for various reasons deny it. I am trying to
> prove what I and many others hold to be true; your view is an aberration

Ahh here it comes, the name calling.

I know Jamey Lee West, sir, Jamey Lee West called me many more names than
that, sir, and...well...you're no Jamey Lee West.

Also, please be advised that swallowing your keyboard is a choking hazard.

Steve.


=====
"In a nutshell, he [Steve] is 100% unadulterated evil. I do not believe in a 'Satan', but this man is as close to 'the real McCoy' as they come." 
--Jamey Lee West

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf!  It's FREE.
http://im.yahoo.com/


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%