- Sep 19, 2004
- 1,241
- 83
- 75
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
MartinM said:I don't think that is the logic of the article, though. It's more like this:
A 15th century artist drew a dinosaur.
It is highly improbable that an artist would, by sheer coincidence, happen to make up a creature that was very similar to one which really existed, but he had never seen.
Therefore, the artist probably saw a dinosaur.
Which is still a pretty dumb argument worthy of ridicule, of course
I would tend to think that your second statement in the syllogism is no different than mine. Lets say there is a .01% probability that a human artist can draw what something he doesn't see but which is correct. That almost equates to my second assumption. Technically, you are correct because everything is a probability, but I think the difference between us is unremarkable. It is a really stupid argument.
By the way, the thing that destroys the argument that they got something right is the question--which species was the artist drawing?
Upvote
0
