On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 09:12:21AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 02/11/2009 08:32 AM, Jack Schneider wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:06:36 -0600
Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> wrote:
On 02/11/2009 07:47 AM, Jack Schneider wrote:
[snip]
We are probably the only entities in the universe who spend so much
energy keeping track of the number of times our planet spins.
How bazaar!
How can you make such a comment when you have *no clue* as to what
any other entity does?
RE: "probably"
probably
2: easy to believe on the basis of available evidence; "he
talked plausibly before the committee"; "he will probably win
the election" [syn: {credibly}, {believably}, {plausibly},
{probably}] [ant: {implausibly}, {improbably}, {incredibly},
{unbelievably}]
Based on these definitions, your statement is a fallacy:
(Logic) An argument, or apparent argument, which professes
to be decisive of the matter at issue, while in reality it
is not; a sophism.
Based on these definitions, Jack's original statement seems accurate to
me:
It is easy to believe on the basis of available evidence that we are the
only entities in the universe who spend so much energy keeping track of
the number of times our planet spins.