Ever felt insignificant?

[heliocentric]

it depends on what you might mean by things i'd guess ....

... or by "tell."

As for insignificance... yes, in terms of distance (whatever that actually means) we are pretty insignificant components of the universe. But we're also a somewhat special component of the universe (the only one so far discovered) - one which consciously reflects on itself, which for the future evolution of the universe is maybe not at all insignificant.

[Pabmusic]

well, its an incentive...I will keep posting speculatively, and maybe I will hit on some answers !

There'll probably be a 100% certainty that you'll be right and, simultaneously, a 100% certainty that you'll be wrong - until someone opens your post.

[teamsaint]

There'll probably be a 100% certainty that you'll be right and, simultaneously, a 100% certainty that you'll be wrong - until someone opens your post.

I see what you did there.....!!
probably true though.....or perhaps not until I opened your post !

Edit..there may be a significant connection here to the cat thread.

[Pabmusic]

...there may be a significant connection here to the cat thread.

Miaow...or maybe not...

[scottycelt]

Now, without getting into a tit-for-tat, ping-pong, nah-nah-nee-nah sort of debate I fear it's not the horrible and quite dreadful 'religionists' who are putting up any smokescreens here, but some of our nice little cuddly 'anti-religionists'.

Who's ever mentioned 'holy books'? Certainly not I or any other 'religionist' around here. The debate was about applying the same burden of proof to two conflicting claims, that's all, but now has been deliberately sidetracked by the very people making the accusation of 'smokescreens'.

If my lovely wife doesn't believe I tripped over that infamous stone and she asks me to prove that I did, that admittedly could cause me real problems. However, if she insists that I didn't and I ask her to provide evidence in turn and she says she doesn't need to 'cos her atheist fiend told her that no one can prove something didn't happen, well, I'd feel that was decidedly one-sided, unfair and, er, wholly illogical, wouldn't you .. ? Not that this would be a particularly unusual occurrence, I have to say.

Right, back to football and relative sanity ...

[amateur51]

Who's ever mentioned 'holy books'? Certainly not I or any other 'religionist' around here. The debate was about applying the same burden of proof to two conflicting claims, that's all, but now has been deliberately sidetracked by the very people making the accusation of 'smokescreens'.

Straw man, in-coming!

Are you saying that you have never mentioned the Hily Boble, as the Rev Spooner might have said, scotty? It does seem to feature quite a bit in the Christian side of things. I wonder why you seek to deny it ... oh hang on, isn't the denial bit some sort of test thing with you people

It all gets so complicated, innit

[amateur51]

We can tell that, from the Reception level "arguments" that we get from you!

Note for new readers - when Simon is feeling a bit harassed he calms himself by assuming a multiple identity and becomes 'we'

An unkind person might called this The Piglet Defence (weeweeweeweeeeeee ) but I am not that cruel.

Just yet

[scottycelt]

Straw man, in-coming!

Are you saying that you have never mentioned the Hily Boble, as the Rev Spooner might have said, scotty? It does seem to feature quite a bit in the Christian side of things. I wonder why you seek to deny it ... oh hang on, isn't the denial bit some sort of test thing with you people

It all gets so complicated, innit

The only members here I can ever recollect quoting from any 'holy book' are yourself and Mr GG, amsey ... 'anti-religionists', ironically, are often the most prolific "thumpers" of all!

[Roslynmuse]

atheist fiend

[scottycelt]

Yes, on due consideration, I decided that seemed rather too appropriate a typo to edit, Roslynmuse ...

[Pabmusic]

Yes, on due consideration, I decided that seemed rather too appropriate a typo to edit, Roslynmuse ...

'Rather too appropriate' is an odd way to describe an oxymoron.

Anyway, as I see that no one has answered the point you were making in this paragraph of no. 96, I thought I might have a go -

If I trip over a stone, whilst out walking, and break my nose and then return to my wife, tell her what happened, and then she says 'hmmm, nonsense, Scottycelt, I don't believe a word of this 'tripping over a stone', you've been in another brawl with some of those nice, gorgeous-looking atheists again, haven't you? ... '. well, if she demanded proof, I might find it difficult to prove to her that, on this occasion at least, she was hopelessly wrong ...

However, I would also see absolutely no logical reason not to ask her, in turn, to provide some counter-evidence for her confident claim that I did not trip over that stone!

Now there are three statements here, express and implied:

1. A factual statement: "I tripped over a stone, dear"
2. A statement of Mrs S's incredulity, amounting to "I don't believe you"
3. A statement of Mrs S's opinion: "You've been in another brawl with some of those nice, gorgeous-looking atheists again, haven't you?"

All three of these are positive statements. No. 2 might seem negative, but it is actually a statement of Mrs S's disbelief in your story, rather than a claim that you were not doing what you said (though that is obviously implied). So what needs to be proved?

It is reasonable that Mrs S will expect an explanation for something that is not, presumably, a common occurrence chez Scottycelt, so that it is incumbent upon you to say what happened. It is also for you to supply supporting evidence if your story is doubted (you are the one claiming you tripped over a stone, after all).

[I am assuming throughout that Mrs S is not actually omniscient – a quality that I sometimes wonder whether Mrs Pabmusic possesses, especially when she hears the fridge door open from several rooms away.]

Now we come to the delicate bit. Mrs S simply doesn’t believe you; is her disbelief irrational? There are many conditions (paranoia and schizophrenia spring to mind, but there are many more) where people can act irrationally over such things. If something like this applies, you can insist you are right and demand proof of any counter-allegation, although (as you will already know anyway) it won’t have the slightest effect. But the proof you are asking for, however you express it, is proof of a positive thing – proof that you were actually doing something else – because there is no other way to prove that you were not doing what you say you were.

Alternatively, Mrs S might simply be naturally argumentative, and may have questioned your version just because she enjoys the cut and thrust of debate. If that is the case, you will want to know her reason for doubting you (presumably a hypothetical one) and the two of you will argue into the early hours. Though whether questions of ‘proof’ are relevant here, I’m not sure. However, any ‘proof’ that you didn’t do what you say will still amount to proof that you did something else – a positive.

But I suspect that the truth lies elsewhere, because you gave the game away yourself. Mrs S is suspicious of your claim since painful experience has taught her to be so (otherwise why would she say “you’ve been brawling again…”?).

Now you have a problem. To demand that Mrs S prove that things didn’t happen as you say is a tactic guaranteed to make the situation worse (and probably to make you appear more guilty than you already do).

There are now three possibilities.

A. You tripped over a stone;
B. You were fighting with atheists, like she says;
C. You were doing something else that she hasn’t sussed and presumably wouldn’t approve of (otherwise you’d have told her the truth already).

Plus an interesting fourth:

D. You tripped over a stone on the way to, from, or during, a fight with atheists, or when you were doing whatever was in C that you want to keep quiet about.

If B or C are true, and you are not prepared to own up, it would be very risky to insist she prove you did not trip over a stone. She cannot do so anyway (unless somehow she did observe you all the time – though she doesn’t seem that suspicious a person to me) so she can only try to show that you were doing something else. But I doubt you want her to delve into what you were actually doing.

If D is the case, you will probably feel very indignant that your honesty should be questioned. You did trip over a stone, after all. The problem, of course, is that by insisting on the correctness of such a narrowly defined truth, you attempt to set up a smokescreen of self-righteousness to hide the fact that you shouldn’t have been there in the first place. In such circumstances, to insist that Mrs S prove anything is a tactic even more risky than it is in cases B or C, since if it fails there is no other explanation that that you were being dishonest and knew it. Nonetheless, it remains impossible for Mrs S to prove you didn’t trip over a stone, though that would undoubtedly not be what she is interested in. She wants to know whether you were brawling “again”.

A is the one redeeming case. You were hurt in an accident that happened when you were behaving yourself. How tragic that you were not believed! Of course you want Mrs S to justify her scepticism (it’s a pity you have been involved in at least one brawl before, because it has dented your credibility with Mrs S, but we all have to live with our pasts). She still cannot prove that you did not trip, unless she had you under observation at all relevant times and saw that you didn’t.

But that’s not what concerns her – she wants to know if you’ve been in a fight, and she either does have evidence, or she doesn’t. If she has evidence, and it stands up, it is evidence of a positive event, not a negative one, just as it is in every case above.

I think Mrs S is very patient.

[Dave2002]

Pabmisic

Scotty could take another way out, and adopt a solipsist viewpoint in which Mrs S doesn't really exist, but only in his own mind. He could then decide that it doesn't really matter what Mrs S (virtual) thinks, and get on with his own life untroubled about Mrs S's queries re falling over stones, though whether he could be certain that he himself fell over a stone or not after the event is itself open to question. At least he wouldn't be troubled by queries about things which he almost certainly didn't do.

However, having suggested this approach, I have to say that in my experience it almost never works, though of course I may exist only as a figment in your imagination too.

[scottycelt]

'Rather too appropriate' is an odd way to describe an oxymoron.

Anyway, as I see that no one has answered the point you were making in this paragraph of no. 96, I thought I might have a go .... .

.

Good morning, Pab .. yes, I've been making the same point for about three days now so thanks for thinking you might have a go!

As you referred to 'oxymorons', in my own experience, I don't think 'friend and 'fiend' are necessarily contradictory ... in any case, the temptation to leave well alone was just too much and the decision to do so was most unworthy of me .. or maybe not!

You've obviously given this matter a great deal of thought and consideration. I totally agree with practically all you say ... practically all ... but the whole point is that to make any sort of claim, or in this case accusation, is a positive move whether something has happened or not. Any claim requires evidence, surely. With no supporting evidence one way or the other wouldn't it be more logical to take up a neutral position on the matter, rather than make a totally unsubstantiated claim?

We come back to the central point. Not believing in something is fine, but claiming it definitely does not exist when others think there is evidence to the contrary is a wholly different matter. I suggest that many of us might automatically expect some pretty solid and clinching evidence to follow in return!

BTW, Mrs Scottycelt says you don't know the half of it when it comes to her patience, but she thanks you anyway ...

[amateur51]

The only members here I can ever recollect quoting from any 'holy book' are yourself and Mr GG, amsey ... 'anti-religionists', ironically, are often the most prolific "thumpers" of all!

I'm sure I was I was just trying to be inclusive, scotty knowing how detached you sometimes feel in here

[heliocentric]

evidence of a positive event

Impeccable.