Off Topic > Off Topic
Missing Link Found
Jsk2003:
--- Quote from: Mateo on May 22, 2009, 08:48:21 AM ---Actually no. You cannot disprove something unless you can prove something.
--- End quote ---
Wrong,
Let's say you have a red cloth.
You can say 'It's NOT BLUE!" (Disproving the assumption one made about it being blue)
without having to prove that it's red.
"Well we know that it's over 5000 things." is disproving the assumption that it's 5000 or below. Yet you haven't proven the exact number, yet you still disproved the assumption of 5000/below.
MoogleBoss:
--- Quote from: Spaceblockhead on May 22, 2009, 01:30:14 PM ---Link went to Gamelon and was found after he went missing.
--- End quote ---
Osak:
--- Quote from: Jsk2003 on May 22, 2009, 07:05:40 PM ---Wrong,
Let's say you have a red cloth.
You can say 'It's NOT BLUE!" (Disproving the assumption one made about it being blue)
without having to prove that it's red.
"Well we know that it's over 5000 things." is disproving the assumption that it's 5000 or below. Yet you haven't proven the exact number, yet you still disproved the assumption of 5000/below.
--- End quote ---
But then you already proved it's red because you saw it with your own eyes. Take witnesses for example.
Block Builder:
--- Quote from: koolkody12 on May 23, 2009, 12:03:52 PM ---But then you already proved it's red because you saw it with your own eyes.
--- End quote ---
You never proved it was red, you observed that it is red.
Osak:
--- Quote from: Block Builder on May 23, 2009, 12:06:09 PM ---You never proved it was red, you observed that it is red.
--- End quote ---
Okay, by your logic, then the picture is not proof, you only observed it.
EDIT: Observation shows proof that it's red. It's not likely for a person to see a red cloth, and say that it's blue.
I think Mateo was trying to say, you can't disaprove something unless you could prove it, if you can't, you're displaying false facts most of the time.