Re: Re: [Harp-L] Comb material

At 11:49 PM 4/22/2007, you wrote:

Zombor Kovacs wrote:
> It is not obvious that comb material doesn't matter.

I think what's obvious, at least in terms of discussion on this list,
is that there is a preponderance of empirical evidence that comb
material does not matter, and with the burden of proof on those who
say it does, little has moved this topic in several years.

You're making a common error in logic. Both sides bear the burden of proof. While it's true one cannot prove a negative. When someone says comb matter doesn't matter. He or she is making a positive statement about reality albeit using negative grammatical syntax. If one said, I don't think the evidence supports the fact that comb material matters, then the burden stays with the person who comb material does matter. The burden shifts, however to the person saying the comb material in a harmonica does not effect the tone. It's a subtle difference in grammar, but a large one in meaning. Vern, for example, offered proof for his position that comb material didn't matter.

That's why when debating theists I'm always careful in saying I don't the there is enough proof, or the arguments for the proof are not convincing. I never say there is no God because then I'd have prove that. And unlike a harp I cannot put him in a lab or take him apart.

This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.