To: tacticalogic; betty boop
An argument based on the "absence of evidence" is by definition not an argument about what was said but rather what was not said.
To: Alamo-Girl
[[An argument based on the “absence of evidence” is by definition not an argument about what was said but rather what was not said. ]]
I wish you hadn’t said that
570 posted on
10/03/2009 10:27:38 PM PDT by
CottShop
(Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
To: Alamo-Girl
An argument based on the "absence of evidence" is by definition not an argument about what was said but rather what was not said. As long as what was not said is irrelevent within the scope of what was said, isn't such an argument non-sequitur?
573 posted on
10/04/2009 8:50:53 AM PDT by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson