The Dresden Files > DF Spoilers
In This, The End of All Things, I Come Out of Lurking
groinkick:
--- Quote from: Oijl on December 22, 2017, 07:37:28 PM ---Simon is NOT Cowl! There is NO evidence - yes, I've heard all the arguments, and all of it is grasping at straws. Maybe Cowl is someone we know, maybe Cowl is Cowl, but he is not not NOT Simon, and those of you who cling to this outrageous belief will feel quite silly indeed when Cowl's identity is revealed (in, like, fifty years).
--- End quote ---
What is the evidence that Cowl is NOT Simon? If our belief is outrageous, could you please show what evidence he is not Cowl?
jonas:
--- Quote from: groinkick on December 24, 2017, 04:53:49 AM ---What is the evidence that Cowl is NOT Simon? If our belief is outrageous, could you please show what evidence he is not Cowl?
--- End quote ---
That's not really how the burden of proof works... Disproving things is an impracticality.
groinkick:
--- Quote from: jonas on December 24, 2017, 01:33:32 PM ---That's not really how the burden of proof works... Disproving things is an impracticality.
--- End quote ---
Disagree, and here is why.
#1. I did not ask poster to disprove that Simon was Cowl. I asked what evidence they had to Simon not being Cowl. There is a difference, even if a subtle one.
#2. The strong language used by poster
--- Quote --- Maybe Cowl is someone we know, maybe Cowl is Cowl, but he is not not NOT Simon, and those of you who cling to this outrageous belief will feel quite silly indeed when Cowl's identity is revealed
--- End quote ---
Poster is not simply stating that they disagree, or that they see no evidence. They are making a statement that the theory is 100% completely wrong. To claim that a theory is 100% wrong, there is always a strong reason, or evidence to believe it is wrong.
#3. "That's not really how the burden of proof works... Disproving things is an impracticality." This is usually the case for religious, philosophical, or mythological debate, not in the real world. For example in a police investigation:
Detective: We think you killed that girl
Suspect: you will have to prove it
Detective: Where were you Thursday night between 6:00 pm and 8 pm
The burden of proof is now on the suspect to disprove the detective by citing evidence that they were somewhere that was not the crime scene. The detective does not have to prove that the suspect was at the crime scene, the suspect must now prove they were not. The suspect could make the claim "It's up to you to prove I was there", but in front of a jury if the suspect cannot disprove the theory that they were at the crime scene, the jury has a good chance of convicting. In real world scenario's people often must disprove a claim.
Cowl is a real character who's identity is hidden.
Simon is a real character within the stories
Claim: Simon is Cowl, but admits there isn't evidence to prove it.
Poster claim: Theory is 100% wrong.
Burden is now on poster to prove WHY it is 100% wrong, or admit that they don't have evidence, and simply disagree with claim. Poster cannot possibly know if Simon is not Cowl without out of book information (Jim saying so), Foreknowledge (a beta reader who knows the identity), or strong in book evidence (which I requested because I want to know what it is). If Jim didn't say so, if they don't have foreknowledge, and they have no evidence to deny the theory then they have no basis to claim that the belief Simon is Cowl is outrageous, and completely wrong.
wardenferry419:
While I believe in the theory that Simon is Cowl; I am guessing the proof against the theory involves Simon being dead and Cowl being alive. Absent an on-page death and a body, I am chalking this up to an assumption.
jonas:
1 they actually said there is no proof simon is cowl, effectively chanllenging others for evidence. Not saying they have proof of the contrary, I saw no alternate theory?
2 I don't disagree but that's not the point.
3 ...... LMAO no, actually that's why it's innocent until proven guilty. The suspect would never say such a flimsy thing because no court would proceed to prosecute on the idea... also, why pleading the fifth is a thing, they don't have to make any claims at all, doing so looks bad, but by itself proves nothing.
Not saying your inherently wrong, but your example is too narrow into a law unto itself... shoulda went with scientific theorums(which by the way are hard to disprove too)
They are saying there is no proof for simon as cowl, which doesn't prove anything in and of itself either, but if your saying simon IS cowl surely the proof exists...
--- Quote ---Every scientific theory starts as a hypothesis. A scientific hypothesis is a suggested solution for an unexplained occurrence that doesn't fit into a currently accepted scientific theory. In other words, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a hypothesis is an idea that hasn't been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a theory — in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.
Tanner further explained that a scientific theory is the framework for observations and facts. Theories may change, or the way that they are interpreted may change, but the facts themselves don't change. Tanner likens theories to a basket in which scientists keep facts and observations that they find. The shape of that basket may change as the scientists learn more and include more facts. "For example, we have ample evidence of traits in populations becoming more or less common over time (evolution), so evolution is a fact but the overarching theories about evolution, the way that we think all of the facts go together might change as new observations of evolution are made," Tanner told Live Science.
--- End quote ---
and now see.. the thing here is I could point at facts that seem to be left out of the simon is cowl theorum's basket.(my favorite being, Elaine showing up in the next chapter of SK, a fellow Dumorne apprentice who directly unworks Harry's wards as he was just accused of doing to Archangel... and yet, Simon becomes explicit when then?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version