Purple cow fallacy

[siti]

I never saw a purple cow
I never hope to see one
If you can't prove there's no such thing
There certainly must be one

What is the logical fallacy here?

 

[Skwim]

It's the fallacy of proving a negative.

One can easily "prove" that a purple cow once lived by presenting the body. But no one can "prove" that a purple cow never existed. If you think so, simply consider how you'd go about it.

.

.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I never saw a purple cow
I never hope to see one
If you can't prove there's no such thing
There certainly must be one

What is the logical fallacy here?

It is obvious. But how do you see it is applied by the followers of religions? (If you see them doing this)

 

[Axe Elf]

The casual observer might cite the "fallacy" of trying to prove a negative, but there are in fact some negatives that can be proven.

This is actually a form of "denying the antecedent," which in formal logic goes something like "If A, then B; not A, therefore, not B."

In this case, A is "proof that no purple cows exist" and B is "no purple cows exist." Then the denial of proof that no purple cows exist is put forth as evidence of the negation that no purple cows exist--in other words, that they do exist.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I never saw a purple cow
I never hope to see one
If you can't prove there's no such thing
There certainly must be one

What is the logical fallacy here?

You would have to know what a purple cow is beforehand in order to recognize it.

 

[siti]

It is obvious.

Is it?

But how do you see it is applied by the followers of religions?

I haven't said that. Are you saying that?

 

[David T]

It is obvious. But how do you see it is applied by the followers of religions? (If you see them doing this)

Figure out how you are doing it. A bit of the sliver in ones own eye matches the slivers in others eyes.

If you manage that then and only then do you realize you cant remove their sliver for them because you removed your sliver for yourself.. So its a depth issue not an informational, intellectual, issue. Or it is actually an issue with the intellect believing its primary. Its not confined only to religion that is a sliver, its pandemic.

 

[Axe Elf]

It's the fallacy of proving a negative.

One can easily "prove" that a purple cow exists by presenting one. But no one can't "prove" that a purple cow does not exist. If you think so, simply consider how you'd go about it.

The best way to prove a negative is to prove that it is logically impossible.

I can prove that I am not on Mars, for instance, by proving that physical objects cannot be in two non-contiguous places at the same time, then proving that I am a physical object, and that I am here.

If you can prove that there are no possible genetic combinations that would produce a purple skin/hair tone, then you can prove that purple cows are logically impossible.

 

[David T]

The casual observer might cite the "fallacy" of trying to prove a negative, but there are in fact some negatives that can be proven.

This is actually a form of "denying the antecedent," which in formal logic goes something like "If A, then B; not A, therefore, not B."

In this case, A is "proof that no purple cows exist" and B is "no purple cows exist." Then the denial of proof that no purple cows exist is put forth as evidence of the negation that no purple cows exist--in other words, that they do exist.

A. Emperical proof No purple cows exist
B. Therefore no purple cows exist
A. If there is proof that no purple cows exist
B. Then purple cows exist

Do i have yhat right? It seems not quit right

 

[David T]

I never saw a purple cow
I never hope to see one
If you can't prove there's no such thing
There certainly must be one

What is the logical fallacy here?

I have never seen a Purple cow and neither have you. Since it cant be proven to exist it must exist..

My take.
Purple cows actually literally do exist we are talking about them right now. I can prove it. Any response is proof and therefore they actually do exist. Fiction is fundemental in nature actually!! For you non artist types how do we split the fact from the fiction in a stick bug? it creates fiction for anothers perspective. Its survival depends on it. If it does not present fiction it dies. If the perspective that is being presented fiction cant tell the differnence it starves. So a bird brain separates fact from fiction. But the bird eats the fiction and thats a biological fact.

Facts and fiction fun topic!!!!

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It is obvious. But how do you see it is applied by the followers of religions? (If you see them doing this)

Its more.

I never saw god/entity.
I never hope to see god
If you cant prove there's no such thing (as god)
There certainly must be one

So, basically, in my seen-experience on RF only bahai and christians have the view that because you havent seen X, you cant prove it doesnt exist. And since you cant prove it doesnt exist, it must exist.

Do you see the fallacy in that?

Not saracstic just being direct and honest.

 

[Salvador]

I never saw a purple cow
I never hope to see one
If you can't prove there's no such thing
There certainly must be one

What is the logical fallacy here?

Somebody could spray paint a cow purple, and fabricate a purple cow into existence.

And yes cow tipping is a real thing, you ought to try this sometime, it works best when the cow tipper is intoxicated.

 

[David T]

You would have to know what a purple cow is beforehand in order to recognize it.

the question never arose as to what form would determine a pure cow exactly.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Its more.

I never saw god/entity.
I never hope to see god
If you cant prove there's no such thing (as god)
There certainly must be one

So, basically, in my seen-experience on RF only bahai and christians have the view that because you havent seen X, you cant prove it doesnt exist. And since you cant prove it doesnt exist, it must exist.

Do you see the fallacy in that?

Not saracstic just being direct and honest.

Bahais never said it in this way you are presenting it.

 

[Salvador]

Its more.

I never saw god/entity.
I never hope to see god
If you cant prove there's no such thing (as god)
There certainly must be one

So, basically, in my seen-experience on RF only bahai and christians have the view that because you havent seen X, you cant prove it doesnt exist. And since you cant prove it doesnt exist, it must exist.

Do you see the fallacy in that?

Not saracstic just being direct and honest.

Either purple cows or gods can be fabricated into existence; in fact it'd be easier to fabricate an invisible deity than inventing a purple cow into existence, because unlike with making a cow purple, no can of purple spray paint is required for making up an invisible god.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I never saw a purple cow
I never hope to see one
If you can't prove there's no such thing
There certainly must be one

What is the logical fallacy here?

Sagan dealt with this in his "dragon in the garage" thought experiment. I'll see if I can find it...

Edit: here it is;

" "A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Suppose I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so."

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Bahais never said it in this way you are presenting it.

Its the context. Some of you are more direct than others. Its about the argument not the people who make it.

 

[Thief]

I never hope to see one

you tossed your emotional insistence into the line of thought

 

[Curious George]

I never saw a purple cow
I never hope to see one
If you can't prove there's no such thing
There certainly must be one

What is the logical fallacy here?

It is just an invalid argument. The conclusion is not necessarily true. I suppose you could say nonsequitur but it is more like an inductive argument with a poorly worded, unecessary conclusion.

 

[siti]

by proving that physical objects cannot be in two non-contiguous places at the same time

Are you suggesting that a physical object can be in two contiguous places at the same time?