Cynique

 

That's not true. Speak for yourself. For instance. what are the other meanings  of evidence? 

It IS true, and here's the PROOF of this from Merriam-Webster's dictionary:





You've been supplied with atleast 3 different definitions to choose from.


 

 

 

 

As for Del, unlike you, he's secure enough in his manhood, to concede a point.

Secure enough to conceding points???
Know what that sounds like to me?
That sounds like a man who's USED to losing.....but anyway, lol.

 

@Pioneer13 ain't MULTIPLE to me. And those are  not really different meanings of evidence, they are variations of the same thing and  are interchangeable with the  noun "proof". And a synonym is not a definition; it is a single  word that means the same thing as another word. Here again, we are dealing with semantics and interpretations. That's why i hesitated to argue further because we have different  mind sets.  (i did forget that in a debate, you never let your opponent supply the definitions.) 

 

 

3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Secure enough to conceding points???
Know what that sounds like to me?
That sounds like a man who's USED to losing.....but anyway, lol.

 

@Pioneer1Who cares what it sounds like to you?  It would be different if you came across as a winner. But you don't.

   

Cynique

 

 

3 ain't MULTIPLE to me.

 

That's because you didn't make it past the 2nd grade.
So we know YOU don't know any better....lol.
 

But most educated people recognize that multiple = 2 or more.

(i did forget that in a debate, you never let your opponent supply the definitions.) 

No worries.
You didn't break any rules....because this isn't a debate. 🤭
There is no debate over FACTS and TRUTH.

Either you accept it....or you don't.
 

When was the last time you saw a "debate" over whether or not Hydrogen and Oxygen made up Water?
Or whether or not meat should be cooked before consumption?

Some things aren't up for debate.
 

@Pioneer1 you have my head spinning, yo.  In another discussion initiated by @Delanoreferencing Randomness, he shared a response from ChatGPT that says, 'IS anything random or are things so complex that the order isn't apparent?'. 

 

Are Proof and Evidence too complex to truly determine fact (I would argue, yes, in some cases), or are they random conclusions based on insufficient data?  Do we lean on subconscious habits and/or conscious choices to resolve our position of proof and evidence?  

 

Using the definitions that you shared, how far do we dig to:

• Show Proof (sufficient enough (who determines this) to establish that a thing is true, or produce belief in its truth).  Is this then, Proof? hmmmm.
• Does the Evidence (that which or tends to prove or disprove something(who determines this)).  Is this, Evidence? Hmmm.
• or are some things too complex that subjective random opinions interfere? hmmm, maybe in some cases

We've witnessed the impact of Proof and Evidence  - conveniently.  (in many cases)

 

In other words,

• an apple is, in fact, and objectively an apple, (based on sufficient proof and evidence of what constitutes an apple)
• statistics about, for example, why there is an increase in crime in my neighborhood, is too complex to be objective, insensitive to be subjective and too complex to be random.   Thus, proof and evidence can result in false positives.

 

so, to address your topic, 'Evidence and Proof...there is a difference'.  the difference depends on the intention and the ability to objectively conclude.  But then again, how can we objectively conclude if these words are arbitrarily defined based on ones intentions?   

1 hour ago, Dee Miller said:

apple is, in fact, and objectively an apple, (based on sufficient proof and evidence of what constitutes an apple)

I would say an apple was defined instead of proved.

Thanks for participating, you responses were evocative and made me think more deeply.

Dee Miller

 

@Pioneer1 you have my head spinning, yo

 

Lol...it might be my cologne.

 

Excellent observations.........

 

 

 

Show Proof (sufficient enough (who determines this) to establish that a thing is true, or produce belief in its truth).  Is this then, Proof? hmmmm.

 

Under ONE definition of "proof"....it's quite simple.
Whoever you're trying to prove an incident TO is the one who determines what constitutes "proof".

If they accept it...it's proof, to them atleast.

 

 

 Thus, proof and evidence can result in false positives.
 
Not sure your what you mean.
Maybe you can flesh that statement out a little more.

 

If it's related to your statement about statistics and crime, keep in mind that statistics are just numbers and figures on a sheet or on the screen.  They may or may not necessarily be true or accurate.

Let us remember that statistics aren't necessarily "evidence".
Evidence are FACTS.  Things that are actually true.

Statistics are just a bunch of numbers and figures and other information on a sheet or on a screen that can EASILY be manipulated or falsified, so it doesn't necessarily count as evidence.
Only statistics (or any other documentation for that matter) that have been VERIFIED AS TRUE can count as evidence.

Not surprisingly, i reject pioneer's self serving contention that our argument was not a debate. As in all debates there is a pro argument and a con argument, and each side states its case. (This procedure occurs on a regular  basis in the U.S. Supreme court where the majority opinion rules.) At  the risk of being repetitive, this debate  is also a text book example of how semantics come into play, something implicit in Dee Miller's observations. 

 

What also comes into play are personalities and pioneer can always be depended upon by word or deed  to try and prove what he gives no evidence of,  which is that he is the "smartest person in the room".  To do otherwise would deflate his bloated ego and inflated sense of self esteem, something that can be traced to a deeper psychosis.   

 

Del and I, in essence, agreed to disagree which is moreorless a draw siince we never really declared either of ourselves the winner.  But pioneer persisted because he imagines that this forum is a stage, and he desperately wants the audience of lurkers to look upon him as a super star rather than the mundane mope that he is.  He obviously ruminated all week long and then grasping at the straws afloat in his wet dreams, reappears on this thread, pouncing on one of the definitions of "multiple",  - another being a number that can be divided by another number without a remainder, something 3 isn't.   Context, context!

 

What was also a blatant example of pioneer's inadequacies were his usual straw man distortions,  false equivalencies, non sequiturs and ad hominem attacks. And  It really says a lot about how illogical his thinking is to say i didn't get past 2nd grade when he in his playground mentality bites his fingernails trying to best me.  zzzzzzz

 

@Dee MillerYour analysis was a valid one, particularly because it wasn't the rant of a numbskull whose head it will go right over because he is unable to think in the abstract. Thank you for your input! 

 

   

11 minutes ago, Cynique said:

Not surprisingly, i reject pioneer's self serving contention that our argument was not a debate. As in all debates there is a pro argument and a con argument, and each side states its case. (This procedure occurs on a regular  basis in the U.S. Supreme court where the majority opinion rules.) At  the risk of being repetitive, this debate  is also a text book example of how semantics come into play, something implicit in Dee Miller's observations. 

 

What also comes into play are personalities and pioneer can always be depended upon by word or deed  to try and prove what he gives no evidence of,  which is that he is the "smartest person in the room".  To do otherwise would deflate his bloated ego and inflated sense of self esteem, something that can be traced to a deeper psychosis.   

 

Del and I, in essence, agreed to disagree which is moreorless a draw siince we never really declared either of ourselves the winner.  But pioneer persisted because he imagines that this forum is a stage, and he desperately wants the audience of lurkers to look upon him as a super star rather than the mundane mope that he is.  He obviously ruminated all week long and then grasping at the straws afloat in his wet dreams, reappears on this thread, pouncing on one of the definitions of "multiple",  - another being a number that can be divided by another number without a remainder, something 3 isn't.   Context, context!

 

What was also a blatant example of pioneer's inadequacies were his usual straw man distortions,  false equivalencies, non sequiturs and ad hominem attacks. And  It really says a lot about how illogical his thinking is to say i didn't get past 2nd grade when he in his playground mentality bites his fingernails trying to best me.  zzzzzzz

 

@Dee MillerYour analysis was a valid one, particularly because it wasn't the rant of a numbskull whose head it will go right over because he is unable to think in the abstract. Thank you for your input! 

 

   

 

 

 

 

@Dee Miller Dee Miller

🥴Not sure why that poster up there is being so obnoxious and insulting but......
I too thank you for your input in this otherwise civil discussion!!

 

On 2/4/2023 at 7:02 PM, Pioneer1 said:

 

That's because you didn't make it past the 2nd grade.
So we know YOU don't know any better....lol.
 

But most educated people recognize that multiple = 2 or more.

 

 

21 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Not sure why that poster up there is being so obnoxious and insulting but......
I too thank you for your input in this otherwise civil discussion!!

 

@Dee Millersince you are new to the board the above quotes are a good example of  pioneer's twisted MO.  He's also good for a lot of laughs especially when he posts pictures of himself in drag.  

23 minutes ago, Cynique said:

which is moreorless a draw siince we never really declared either of ourselves the winner

No you were right 

7 minutes ago, Delano said:

No you were right 

 

 

I'd take this any day     Yum         as opposed to what pioneer is   💩   Yuk

On 1/30/2023 at 7:42 AM, Pioneer1 said:

That sounds like a man who's USED to losing.....but anyway, lol.

I would rather lose sometimes than be a perennial loser.

On 2/7/2023 at 5:04 PM, Delano said:

I would rather lose sometimes than be a perennial loser.

But unfortunately for you.....😪.....you're both. 







Cynique

 

On 2/5/2023 at 5:15 PM, Cynique said:

I'd take this any day     Yum      

I believe you WOULD take one of those anytime any day.
I've seen some of your pictures...lol.



"Hold up Delany baby...
Where you goin'...
Wait for me!!!!"

 

 

 

 

 

🥴

 

@Pioneer1 You need to lose some weight before you put on a bathing suit, and that wig does nothing for you. You'll never get any modeling jobs with that picture in your portfolio. 

 

@DelanoI really admire how pioneers transparent frustrated attempts to belittle you roll right of your back as befits the zero impact they have.  

 

     

 " Stop yawnin', Cynique.  Whachoo mean  I need some new material?"

Cynique ain't yawning.

That's her way of letting you know she's ready for another round of cream puffs.....LOL

@Pioneer1  Get a life, Loser. zzzzzzzzzzzz

4 hours ago, Cynique said:

@Pioneer1  Get a life, Loser. zzzzzzzzzzzz

He has no interest in following any advice.