>>11833879>I already clarified that X and Y weren't variables.Where?
>That is essentially what you've already done. I accept that if you don't have anything substantial to rebut with.No, that is what you have done while failing to respond substantively to the following.
Evidence of X increases the probability of X.
The argument in the OP is not simply based on substitutions of defined words, it's based on probability theory.
Defining a variable has nothing to do with definitions 2 or 3.
The absence of evidence of WMDs in Iraq is the negation of evidence of WMDs in Iraq as an event. The absence of WMDs in Iraq is the negation of WMDs in Iraq as an event. Neither of these are meaningless or defining a variable.
>What meaning does "The absence of evidence of WMDs in Iraq is the negation of evidence of WMDs in Iraq as an event. The absence of WMDs in Iraq is the negation of WMDs in Iraq as an event. Neither of these are meaningless or defining a variable." give to definitions 2 or 3?It explains what definitions 2 and 3 mean with an example. Explain what you don't understand.
>Maybe we have different understandings of 'entirely', but my claim is that without definitions 2 and 3 (which are only used semantically, not in any of the logical implications), the conclusion OP attempted to make does not follow.If a stool has three legs it does not rest entirely on one leg, even if removing a leg would make the stool fall. It rests entirely on three legs. If your point was that the argument relies on these definitions you should have just said that. But that point is an irrelevancy. You are attempting to reduce the argument solely to those definitions in order to defend your claim it's meaningless. But that's simply a misrepresentation of the argument, like saying a stool has only one leg.
