Are Ghosts Real? (a poll)

[The Firebird]

Err... what? How is that a counterargument? But points for using the word 'coxswain' in a sentence.

Let me take this from the top. You started by doing that thing that polite folks should never do: be a grammar policeman. You then compounded your offence by committing the cardinal sin of misinterpreting the 'statutes' you were defending. Let's call that a metaphor for 'being wrong'. Now, I go out of my way to not be a grammar policeman... I make typos, or misremember idioms, etc. and I no doubt type stupid things frequently. Since I live in a glass house, etc. etc.

But when I see someone condescend to someone with a 'Well, ackshually...' on a point of grammar... and they're completely wrong... well, I'll comment on that.

And here we are.

You made an error. I have made many. When I do, I admit to them. You are bending over backwards and going to bizarre lengths to avoid admitting to a mistake. I would respect you more if you just said 'You know, this is the way I've always heard this term being used. I jumped the gun. Mea culpa.'.

It was my statement that was at question, and I'm willing to chalk it up to a miscommunication or a regional difference in the use of language. Maybe @Morrus is using it in a way more common in England? Certainly the statement "Only a person can imply something" does not match my understanding or usage of English...or recent, primarily American, examples here.

My claim was that a state of affairs, "the failure to claim Randi's prize", did not imply something.

In the examples, we have many 'name implies X', as in:
"[the name research university] implies..."

as well as others like "these badges imply X". No person necessary.

My construction is closest to "the absence of evidence does not imply evidence of absence" which is a quite common usage. As is "correlation does not imply causation"; again no person needed to imply things. (I suppose you could say these statements are trivially true because they are just saying that a state of affairs can't imply anything...I think this is misreading them).

---

All that said, the important bit from our exchange is that @Morrus did not mean that "the facts implied something". That was the claim I was responding to and so I had him wrong there. I'm happy to own that.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

It isn’t. It’s a joke.

Thank you!

Now this is a response I can get behind. Well-played.

 

[Zardnaar]

Main argument for ghosts existing? Where the F do my socks go?

Could also involve pyramids!!!!

 

[ColinChapman]

Main argument for ghosts existing? Where the F do my socks go?

Could also involve pyramids!!!!

Also, I'm not saying it's aliens, but...

 

[Zardnaar]

Also, I'm not saying it's aliens, but...

Heh yeah.

Historians generally are not engineers and casuals don't really understand what ancient people could do.

Ergo Aliens.