Assymetrical to symmetrical complexity

[August]

Sure. But there are branches off the RLN into the heart etc, like I quoted from Grays, that apparently has some functionality in that branch...or else why would it branch off from there? You have to show that that all functionality will be retained with your scenario. Even the loss of a single function will negate your argument.

OK, so branch those off at the appropriate level, like I said. The Vagus nerve travels right past the heart.

So then it is necessary for those branches to branch off there, because it seems to hold some function?

[Sceptic]

You are kidding, right?

Ok, answer me this, do you believe that that constitutes proof for the statement "You can't prove a negative"?

You are arguing semantics. If you think that it's possible to prove a negative, then go ahead: prove there's no Father Christmas.

[Sceptic]

So then it is necessary for those branches to branch off there, because it seems to hold some function?

No, they can branch straight off the Vagus. That is the point. You actually don't know anything about nerves, do you?

[August]

You are kidding, right?

Ok, answer me this, do you believe that that constitutes proof for the statement "You can't prove a negative"?

You are arguing semantics. If you think that it's possible to prove a negative, then go ahead: prove there's no Father Christmas.

Semantics? I've been asking you for a formal proof for a few posts now, and you cannot come up with it. You made that statement, now prove it.

[Sceptic]

Semantics? I've been asking you for a formal proof for a few posts now, and you cannot come up with it. You made that statement, now prove it.

I have shown you it is a logical fallacy. If you can't understand what a fallacy is, that's not my problem.

[August]

So then it is necessary for those branches to branch off there, because it seems to hold some function?

No, they can branch straight off the Vagus. That is the point. You actually don't know anything about nerves, do you?

Going to start with the insults now? You don't know anything about me, so if you want to do that, then go ahead.

I get what you are saying, you just have not shown that it is necessarily better.

[August]

Semantics? I've been asking you for a formal proof for a few posts now, and you cannot come up with it. You made that statement, now prove it.

I have shown you it is a logical fallacy. If you can't understand what a fallacy is, that's not my problem.

Sigh.

If you cannot prove it, then say so. What you showed had nothing to do with your statement, it was a muddled combination of the law of identity and the law of the excluded middle.

But you don't seem to able or willing to answer a straight question. Do you believe you have proven that "You can't prove a negative."

[Sceptic]

Going to start with the insults now? You don't know anything about me, so if you want to do that, then go ahead.

I get what you are saying, you just have not shown that it is necessarily better.

What insult? It was a question.

It would be far better, because the RLN fibres would be shorter, and less vulnerable to chest and neck trauma.

[Sceptic]

Sigh.

If you cannot prove it, then say so. What you showed had nothing to do with your statement, it was a muddled combination of the law of identity and the law of the excluded middle.

But you don't seem to able or willing to answer a straight question. Do you believe you have proven that "You can't prove a negative."

Double sigh.

If you can prove a negative, then kindly prove the statement "you can't prove a negative", wrong.

[August]

Sigh.

If you cannot prove it, then say so. What you showed had nothing to do with your statement, it was a muddled combination of the law of identity and the law of the excluded middle.

But you don't seem to able or willing to answer a straight question. Do you believe you have proven that "You can't prove a negative."

Double sigh.

If you can prove a negative, then kindly prove the statement "you can't prove a negative", wrong.

You made that statement, now prove it. Nice try, but you are not going to shift the burden of proof to me here.

As soon as you provide positive proof for your statement, I will be happy to oblige.

[Sceptic]

You made that statement, now prove it. Nice try, but you are not going to shift the burden of proof to me here.

As soon as you provide positive proof for your statement, I will be happy to oblige.

Why are we wasting time re-inventing the wheel? The burden of proof is obviously on you. because you are proposing a well-established logical fallacy - the argument from ignorance.

[August]

You made that statement, now prove it. Nice try, but you are not going to shift the burden of proof to me here.

As soon as you provide positive proof for your statement, I will be happy to oblige.

Why are we wasting time re-inventing the wheel? The burden of proof is obviously on you. because you are proposing a well-established logical fallacy - the argument from ignorance.

This has nothing to do with the argument from ignorance. You just can't prove what you asserting.

[Sceptic]

This has nothing to do with the argument from ignorance. You just can't prove what you asserting.

OK, prove that it isn't the argument from ignorance. I say that it is, prove me wrong.

[August]

This has nothing to do with the argument from ignorance. You just can't prove what you asserting.

OK, prove that it isn't the argument from ignorance. I say that it is, prove me wrong.

So are you saying that you have proven: "You can't prove a negative"

[Sceptic]

So are you saying that you have proven: "You can't prove a negative"

I am saying that is is the argument from ignorance, a well-known logical fallacy.

You seem to want to change the subject from the rather inconvenient RLN. I can't say I blame you!