[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Nice try but no dice. Basically you are saying that a theory that includes the prediction that most people will disagree with it can now dismiss the fact that most people do in fact disagree with it. Or go even further and somehow claim that the existence of detractors is evidence FOR the theory.

I wonder if there is a name for that tactic which reminds me of the boy who murders his parents and asks for mercy as an orphan. If there isn't, there should be.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a tricky bit of logic but I think txag has a point, if only a minor one. Consider the Attack against a Proposition based on the Fact that a lot of people disagree with it. Is that a legitimate attack? It really depends on other factors doesn't it? Certainly history is repleat with examples of true propositions which many people once disagreed with.

Now suppose that part of the Proposition included a claim that nobody Would disagree with it. In that case the Attack would be valid because the existence of disagreement would contradict the Proposition itself. Showing it to be at least False in that part. txag007's point nullifies the chance the Attack could be valid on that particular score. It's minor point, but valid as far as it goes.

However, the main topic of debate remains open. Is the Attack on the basis of the existence of disagreement a valid one, and if so why is it in this particular case? I think the burden of proof is on those making the Attack.

PairTheBoard