.
No, you very clearly *tried* in your "example" to equate the bodies of evidence between these events.
Here, let me help you out:
com·pare: to examine (two or more objects, ideas, people, etc.) in order to note similarities and differences
Now, since it is the same standard you are referring to, then something *else* must be different.
Which is *either* the fact that one example was the Holocaust, in which case you are begging the question with what you believe is a tautology, or the evidence is different in the cases.
Yes, the "something else" that is different is that one is the holocaust and the other is the not-holocaust. Of course the evidence is going to be different--the events are different.
Let's try a hypothetical example to see if it helps you understand. Let's say you're conducting a survey of people's attitudes toward the holocaust and the Armenian Genocide. You developed a questionnaire with ten multiple choice questions. After the survey was complete, if you found out that the answers didn't support your hypothesis, would it be OK to throw out some of questionnaires or change the answers so you would get the results you want? Even you would probably say that it is not OK to do this. Would it matter if there was more evidence of the Armenian Genocide than there was for the holocaust? Would it matter if there was more evidence for the holocaust than the Armenian Genocide? Would it matter if the results you were getting would really be offensive to the Armenian community? Would it matter if it would offend the Jewish community? Would there be any circumstances at all in which you could change answers to a questionnaire to get the results you want?
You would have to say that there are not. So you could say, as a general statement of principle that it's not OK to change answers to survey questions so you can get the results you want. Or to simplify, the maxim is: "You can't make up evidence to support your point."
No matter how much or how little evidence you have on any question at all, it's not OK to fabricate evidence.
We don't have nearly as many testimonies from Armenian Genocide survivors as we do from holocaust survivors. Would it be OK to make up Armenian Genocide survivor testimonies? If I said it's OK to fabricate Armenian Genocide survivor stories but it's not OK to do that with the holocaust, would you say I'm employing a double standard?
But Shermer *didn't* say there is a general absence of evidence. He was very clearly referring to Cole's 'questions' which he characterized as not significant but instead "nice to know".
Shermer said Coles questions were "important" and that it would be "good to have answers to" them. I guess "important" and "not significant" are synonymous. You're right that Shermer wasn't talking about absence of evidence for the holocaust. He was talking about David Cole's important questions, the lack of evidence to answer these questions, and the reminder that not having evidence is OK.
Really? I haven't seen anyone else concede this point at all.
Really, I haven't seen anybody say that it is true that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
And no, the discussion is not to what degree, but if. Something you have spectacularly failed to demonstrate.
Since you believe that "important" and "not significant" are synonymous, I assume you are similarly confused about the meaning of "spectacularly failed to demonstrate"
.
No, because someone *reliable* pulled off our shelves and pointed out the passage to me, having more recently re-read it than I.
And you can be assured that the topic is addressed in "the passage" and nowhere else? I suggest you find somebody who is literate as well as reliable to do your homework for you.
Your turn: on what page does Shermer apply this standard?
It's important to you, not me. You show me on what page he doesn't.
Now this, on the other hand, *is* off topic, and a flat out lie.
I think this season is better than last season but I'm afraid it might have jumped the shark. There haven't been any episodes recently as funny as the one with Crazy Eyes Killer.
This is also both.
.
.
No, that's what you tried and failed to do, for reasons that have been pointed out by other posters as well.
But do keep flailing -- it's mildly amusing in a train-wreck sort of way.
.
If you're going to insist that it's some sort of mystical number, show me the passages in the Talmud that say this. I'd rather watch paint dry than read that waste of paper so don't tell me to look it up myself.
