Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: elmatador who wrote (44842)	1/16/2004 9:28:31 PM
From: AC Flyer	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74559

>>Thanks. You proved how someone can be 'suicided' and the 'suiciders' can get away with it.<< You're showing the gaps in your self-education, elmat. I'd be happy to help you by filling this particular hole. The "Proving a Negative" logical fallacy is also known as "appeal to ignorance," (Ad Ignorantium) or the "burden of proof" fallacy. The essence of this fallacy is an argument that asserts a claim is true because no one can prove it is wrong. For example, "You can't prove there isn't a Loch Ness Monster, so there must be one." Or, a discussion between you and me: elmat: "I believe ....aliens exist." ACF: "I have no evidence to prove ....the non-existence of aliens." elmat: "Aha! I knew it. Aliens exist!" Now, let's bring this back to David Kelly. You have made the assertion that Kelly was murdered. I say that the way Kelly died, the physical evidence, Kelly's behavior before his death and the reaction of his family to his death all paint a picture that is completely devoid of even a hint of foul play. Which leads to: elmat: "I believe ....Kelly was murdered." ACF: "I have no evidence to prove ....that Kelly was not murdered." elmat: "Aha! I knew it. Kelly was murdered!" See the pattern? And that's arguing ad ignorantium in the proverbial nutshell.