My Humpty Dumpty Challenge

[TheBear]

Show me ACTUAL EVIDENCE that Humpty Dumpty didn't actually occur as written.

And I mean SPECIFIC evidence of non-occurrence.

And don't give me that "you-cant-prove-a-negative hype" until you show it's a negative in the first place.

This should be interesting; as you don't know:

1. who he was
2. who the king was
3. any of the king's horses or men
4. what kingdom he represented
5. what wall he sat on
6. anything

Science is myopic.

Oh. You mean prove a negative??? FAIL!!!

How about proving the existence of this character.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh. You mean prove a negative??? FAIL!!!

Show me it's a negative first.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Believe me ... science earns that adjective.

If science can't do this ...

2 Kings 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

... science is myopic.

Is this an exercise in being as wrong as you possibly can?

Quoting verses from a religious text is an excellent way of demonstrating why we need science. Because science is an infinitely better way of working out how the world works than simply making stuff up. Which is what The Bible is: simply made up.

 

[TLK Valentine]

It's a riddle about an egg. There may well have been an egg that fell off a wall - more than one, in fact. I don't know that anyone has argued that all the king's horses and all the king's men could put a smashed egg back together again but I sincerely doubt that they tried.

Incidentally, there's nothing in the story that indicates he was an egg -- that's just an assumption.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Show me ACTUAL EVIDENCE that Humpty Dumpty didn't actually occur as written.

And I mean SPECIFIC evidence of non-occurrence.

And don't give me that "you-cant-prove-a-negative hype" until you show it's a negative in the first place.

This should be interesting; as you don't know:

1. who he was
2. who the king was
3. any of the king's horses or men
4. what kingdom he represented
5. what wall he sat on
6. anything

Science is myopic.

Suppose it did occur? metaphorically, of course.

Humpty is Richard III, and his "great fall" was his defeat at Bosworth Field.

Prove it didn't.

 

[DaisyDay]

Incidentally, there's nothing in the story that indicates he was an egg -- that's just an assumption.

That's how riddles work.

 

[AV1611VET]

Suppose it did occur?

Then you can't show me evidence it didn't, can you?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Then you can't show me evidence it didn't, can you?

But I can -- I can offer you expert testimony; my own.

You see, AV, I happen to be a descendant of Richard III, and the fact that the nursery rhyme was an analogy about my ancestor has been passed down through my family for generations.

You do accept eyewitness testimony, don't you AV? or do you change your tune the moment it becomes inconvenient?

 

[TheBear]

But I can -- I can offer you expert testimony; my own.

You see, AV, I happen to be a descendant of Richard III, and the fact that the nursery rhyme was an analogy about my ancestor has been passed down through my family for generations.

You do accept eyewitness testimony, don't you AV? or do you change your tune the moment it becomes inconvenient?

Crickets....

 

[AV1611VET]

You do accept eyewitness testimony, don't you AV?

You mean from Katherine Elwes Thomas, who started that rumor?

 

[TheBear]

You mean from Katherine Elwes Thomas, who started that rumor?

Can you prove it was just a rumor?

 

[AV1611VET]

Can you prove it was just a rumor?

No -- science is myopic.

 

[TheBear]

Can you prove it was just a rumor?

No

That's all I needed to know. Thanks for playing!

 

[AV1611VET]

That's all I needed to know. Thanks for playing!

You're most welcome.

And welcome back!

 

[AnotherAtheist]

No -- science is myopic.

Typical of you. Just keep on repeating your claim even though you are completely unable to address the arguments against it.

Science is the very least myopic method of knowing that we have. As is clearly demonstrated by our current set of hypotheses developed through the scientific method and their ability to describe and predict the world.

You can't address that. So, you just go on repeating your mantra.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

You mean from Katherine Elwes Thomas, who started that rumor?

Can I just say: well done for actually looking something up and being able to post something that is justified in reality. That's a big step forward for you.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No -- science is myopic.

And you're astigmatic. Science - 1, you - 0.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Re: you cant prove a negative.

A question:

If you can show "e" (evolution is real) then AFAIK you can also prove "- (-e)"...

... that the double negation of evolution true (ie its not the case that evolution doesn't happen). But the latter seems to be a negative claim i.e. "not (-e)" - yet its derived deductively from a positive claim.

So as every provable positive claim can be restated as a double negation of itself, then.... we'll... you tell me... what's with you cant prove a negative???

Likewise the negative claim "humpty didn't exist" i.e. that "-h" is true can be restated as a positive claim that "h" is false.

Untestability doesn't show impossibility btw.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Re: you cant prove a negative.

A question:

If you can show "e" (evolution is real) then AFAIK you can also prove "- (-e)"...

... that the double negation of evolution true (ie its not the case that evolution doesn't happen). But the latter seems to be a negative claim i.e. "not (-e)" - yet its derived deductively from a positive claim.

So as every provable positive claim can be restated as a double negation of itself, then.... we'll... you tell me... what's with you cant prove a negative???

Likewise the negative claim "humpty didn't exist" i.e. that "-h" is true can be restated as a positive claim that "h" is false.

Untestability doesn't show impossibility btw.

I agree. I can prove that there isn't an elephant in the room I'm in right now. I may have this wrong, but I thought that there was a version of autoepistemic reasoning that covers this. 'If X was true, then I would know it. I don't know it, therefore X is not true.' This is, however, non-monotonic reasoning, and the result can be invalidated by the addition of new knowledge. E.g. that there exist microscopic elephants that infest carpets.

Also, science doesn't prove things. Even if we can't prove some negatives, that doesn't mean that the most likely hypothesis isn't that the negative is true. It is exceedingly unlikely that there is an elephant in the room I'm in now.

OT: But, are there threads or a blog or something where you discuss what a Muslim Humanist is?

 

[Nithavela]

I was there, and it occurred exactly as written.

Yeah, I was there, too. It was quite the crowd, even without the king and his men.