“This, obviously, is a fallacious argument. That same negative evidence can used to "prove" that molemen from beneath the surface of the earth have perpetrated these murders. The fact that the molemen have left no evidence behind proves how good they are at remaining hidden. That no sewer or road building projects have ever cut across their tunnels proves that politicians and engineers and other professionals are in league with the molemen. Just as obviously, anyone who denies the molemen exist is either in league with them, or is a fool who cannot see the end coming.”

— Michael A. Stackpole

Responding to fantasy-gaming opponent Patricia Pulling's suggestion that unsolved murders were likely the work of Satanists, as well as her general claims of how Satanists avoid detection
[Stackpole, Michael A., 1990, http://members.tripod.com/~limsk/pulling.htm, "The Pulling Report", Tripod.com, 2007-05-27]

Adopted from Wikiquote. Last update June 3, 2021. History

Help us to complete the source, original and additional information

Do you have more details about the quote "This, obviously, is a fallacious argument. That same negative evidence can used to "prove" that molemen from beneath th…" by Michael A. Stackpole?

Michael A. Stackpole 5

science fiction author 1957

Related quotes

“Very often atheists themselves admit that they have no evidence of God's absence, but they try to put a different spin on it. They'll tell you, “No one can prove a universal negative” (like “There is no God”). They think this somehow excuses them from needing evidence against God's existence. But not only is it false that you can't prove a universal negative (all you have to do is show something is self-contradictory), but more importantly, this claim is really an admission that it's impossible to prove atheism! Atheism involves a universal negative, you can't prove a universal negative, therefore, atheism is unprovable. It turns out that it is the atheist who is believing a view for which there is and can be no evidence.”

William Lane Craig (1949) American Christian apologist and evangelist

On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision (2010), p. 149

“People in general have no notion of the sort and amount of evidence often needed to prove the simplest matter of fact.”

Peter Mere Latham (1789–1875) English physician and educator

Book II, p. 525.
Collected Works

“The atom can't be seen, yet its existence can be proved. And it is simple to prove that it can't ever be seen. It has to be studied by indirect evidence — and the technical difficulty has been compared to asking a man who has never seen a piano to describe a piano from the sound it would make falling downstairs in the dark.”

Carl David Anderson (1905–1991) American scientist

As quoted in Carl Anderson. Some notes about his life and work at Caltech. The first of a series of biographical sketches of Caltech faculty members. Engineering and Science, Vol. 15:1 (October 1951) http://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechES:15.1.0

“Appeal to ignorance — the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa (e. g. There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist — and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

Carl Sagan (1934–1996) American astrophysicist, cosmologist, author and science educator

Referring to an aphorism of Martin Rees. (see Misattributed below)
Source: The Demon-Haunted World : Science as a Candle in the Dark (1995), Ch. 12 : The Fine Art of Baloney Detection, p. 221

“Can anyone be proved innocent, if it be enough to have accused him?”

Julian (emperor) (331–363) Roman Emperor, philosopher and writer

Julian, at the trial of Numerius, governor of Gallia Narbonensis, who was accused of embezzlement. Numerius had successfully defended himself against the prosecutor Delphidius, who in his exasperation, declared whether anyone could be found guilty if they only denied the charges, which provoked Julian's response. As quoted in Book XVIII of Ammianus's History.
General sources

“Murder… murder… Can you prove it was murder? […] I didn't think you could prove it was murder. She was dying in any event.”

John Bodkin Adams (1899–1983) general practitionar, fraudster and suspected serial killer

To police on being charged.

“I don't say that this personal theology is supported or proved by scientific evidence. I only say that it is consistent with scientific evidence.”

Freeman Dyson (1923) theoretical physicist and mathematician

Progress In Religion (2000)
Context: My personal theology is described in the Gifford lectures that I gave at Aberdeen in Scotland in 1985, published under the title, Infinite In All Directions. Here is a brief summary of my thinking. The universe shows evidence of the operations of mind on three levels. The first level is elementary physical processes, as we see them when we study atoms in the laboratory. The second level is our direct human experience of our own consciousness. The third level is the universe as a whole. Atoms in the laboratory are weird stuff, behaving like active agents rather than inert substances. They make unpredictable choices between alternative possibilities according to the laws of quantum mechanics. It appears that mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent inherent in every atom. The universe as a whole is also weird, with laws of nature that make it hospitable to the growth of mind. I do not make any clear distinction between mind and God. God is what mind becomes when it has passed beyond the scale of our comprehension. God may be either a world-soul or a collection of world-souls. So I am thinking that atoms and humans and God may have minds that differ in degree but not in kind. We stand, in a manner of speaking, midway between the unpredictability of atoms and the unpredictability of God. Atoms are small pieces of our mental apparatus, and we are small pieces of God's mental apparatus. Our minds may receive inputs equally from atoms and from God. This view of our place in the cosmos may not be true, but it is compatible with the active nature of atoms as revealed in the experiments of modern physics. I don't say that this personal theology is supported or proved by scientific evidence. I only say that it is consistent with scientific evidence.

“Humans block their progress. This starts from judging things blindly or without proves and evidences.”

Idegu Ojonugwa Shadrach (1995)

Kent Hovind (1953) American young Earth creationist

Source: Are you being brainwashed?: Propaganda in science textbooks (2007), p. 24

“The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.”

Douglas Adams The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy pentalogy

Source: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Help us to complete the source, original and additional information

Michael A. Stackpole 5

Related quotes

Related topics