From a professor of logic and specialist on the history of science:
"The claim is sometimes made that “You can’t prove a negative!” But that turns out to be false. When evidence that ought to be present if an hypothesis were true is not present, then the absence of evidence qualifies as evidence of absence. Suppose you were told there is an elephant in your living room. If you go there and find no indications of the presence of an elephant, you are completely justified in inferring that there is no elephant in your living room. " - https://archive.is/xocEG -
But in this case there is plenty of evidence of epidemic pedophilia in the Catholic Churches and Schools.
To sort the stuff you need the tools of logic; which are deliberately twisted for manipulation of the public / society. The "Classical Trivium" is used to fool those who are targeted for domination.
Just last night a correspondent on Facebook thought she knew the reasons around an event which may not have even taken place. She didn't realize she made an unjustified assumption, and just "went to the races" from there.
In the process of logic "Who?" "What?" "When?" "Where?" comes before "Why?"
The assumption in Pizzagate is that Alefantis et al would never molest nor harm a child.
Once a person has that belief any argument goes no where.
This point bears on a lot of research;
To sort truth from fiction you must know Grammar, Logic and Rhetoric - those things are hidden, on purpose, from most students cf: Trivium study ; Jan Irvin and others Here's a set of links. . - http://www.gnosticmedia.com/triviumstudy - https://archive.is/PG8v5 - The links and videos and podcasts are likely not going to work in the archive version.
I would argue that the bounds you've placed on the hypothetical elephant in the living room is such that the phrase "you can't prove a negative" is rendered moot based on the size of the Universe you're including (living room). The phrase is meant to be used in situations where the Universe cannot be exhausted. An example : There are no purple alligators. No matter how many alligators you look at, you'll never look at all of them. Therefore you cannot explicitly state as fact, there are no purple alligators. You can infer it but you can't be absolutely sure. Hume said even the sun rising was not a sure thing.
The "Sun coming up" is statistical. Some things such a "Newtons' habits of Nature" are statistical and not absolute.
Still when you notice such "laws" are being broken - such as someone walking through a wall, like Casper the Ghost, then you need to check yourself to make sure you are not asleep.
The chance you are asleep or watching a cartoon, in that case, is greater than the chance someone is walking through a wall.
I'll need to ponder this. You may have a point. I guess what I'm suggesting is when I am not lucid dreaming. the things I see, feel and experience see real to me. I would even suggest that I feel more in dreams than I do in waking "reality".
No problem. But the bandied about "Can't prove a negative" is just not true as a generalization.
Sometimes lack of evidence points to evidence of a lack.
And I still fail to see how lack of evidence relates to Pedophilia vis a vis the Holy Roman Church. Was the person trying to say that, lacking evidence of it [?], one might believe it's not happening?
And now we get to the point of the importance of the erasure of evidence and the falsification of history to the big-time State criminals /perps.
If something is omitted / erased , one does not know that. One will not even know *that something has been erased, since it is not there.
(And why I argued in the rules thread for the inclusion of data, rather than the exclusion. Narrowing the data-field works for those who want to control the Investigation. I've seen it over and over. The large State perps know what they are doing and use the same techniques over and over. )
Hence the importance, for these perps, of controlling history - and erasing memory. When they erase it, no one even knows or remembers it was erased.
Maybe that's where "Can't prove a 'negative'" comes in?
view the rest of the comments →
HashTagFU ago
Aside from the fact that you can't prove a negative, I don't disagree there is a lot of fucked up stuff in the catholic church.
samhara ago
You can't prove a negative is not true.
From a professor of logic and specialist on the history of science:
But in this case there is plenty of evidence of epidemic pedophilia in the Catholic Churches and Schools.
https://archive.is/lrXbY Database of Catholic Priests arrested for Pedo Crimes
To sort the stuff you need the tools of logic; which are deliberately twisted for manipulation of the public / society. The "Classical Trivium" is used to fool those who are targeted for domination.
Just last night a correspondent on Facebook thought she knew the reasons around an event which may not have even taken place. She didn't realize she made an unjustified assumption, and just "went to the races" from there.
In the process of logic "Who?" "What?" "When?" "Where?" comes before "Why?"
The assumption in Pizzagate is that Alefantis et al would never molest nor harm a child.
Once a person has that belief any argument goes no where.
This point bears on a lot of research;
To sort truth from fiction you must know Grammar, Logic and Rhetoric - those things are hidden, on purpose, from most students cf: Trivium study ; Jan Irvin and others Here's a set of links. . - http://www.gnosticmedia.com/triviumstudy - https://archive.is/PG8v5 - The links and videos and podcasts are likely not going to work in the archive version.
HashTagFU ago
I'm on it homie. Reporting back shortly.
I would argue that the bounds you've placed on the hypothetical elephant in the living room is such that the phrase "you can't prove a negative" is rendered moot based on the size of the Universe you're including (living room). The phrase is meant to be used in situations where the Universe cannot be exhausted. An example : There are no purple alligators. No matter how many alligators you look at, you'll never look at all of them. Therefore you cannot explicitly state as fact, there are no purple alligators. You can infer it but you can't be absolutely sure. Hume said even the sun rising was not a sure thing.
samhara ago
The "Sun coming up" is statistical. Some things such a "Newtons' habits of Nature" are statistical and not absolute.
Still when you notice such "laws" are being broken - such as someone walking through a wall, like Casper the Ghost, then you need to check yourself to make sure you are not asleep.
The chance you are asleep or watching a cartoon, in that case, is greater than the chance someone is walking through a wall.
HashTagFU ago
Is the dream state any less "real" than what we call reality in the waking state? Why?
samhara ago
Yes. You know it's a dream when the ordinary rules of reality are not in effect. Sometimes it's difficult to tell the difference. It's true.
I consider this a digression. "Are you Conscious? Brains tests say no" - https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/s960x960/15625998_10207937587468289_5352152437201826308_o.jpg?oh=2dc39464fb6b9a20a37da105bae4c7e3&oe=58E00B17 -
also per P.K. Dick "Reality is that which is still there when you stop believing in it"
HashTagFU ago
I'll need to ponder this. You may have a point. I guess what I'm suggesting is when I am not lucid dreaming. the things I see, feel and experience see real to me. I would even suggest that I feel more in dreams than I do in waking "reality".
samhara ago
No problem. But the bandied about "Can't prove a negative" is just not true as a generalization.
Sometimes lack of evidence points to evidence of a lack.
And I still fail to see how lack of evidence relates to Pedophilia vis a vis the Holy Roman Church. Was the person trying to say that, lacking evidence of it [?], one might believe it's not happening?
And now we get to the point of the importance of the erasure of evidence and the falsification of history to the big-time State criminals /perps.
If something is omitted / erased , one does not know that. One will not even know *that something has been erased, since it is not there.
(And why I argued in the rules thread for the inclusion of data, rather than the exclusion. Narrowing the data-field works for those who want to control the Investigation. I've seen it over and over. The large State perps know what they are doing and use the same techniques over and over. )
Hence the importance, for these perps, of controlling history - and erasing memory. When they erase it, no one even knows or remembers it was erased.
Maybe that's where "Can't prove a 'negative'" comes in?