Re: Re: [Harp-L] Comb material

[Jeff roulier <jroulier@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 11:49 PM 4/22/2007, you wrote:

> Zombor Kovacs wrote:
> > It is not obvious that comb material doesn't matter.
>
> I think what's obvious, at least in terms of discussion on this list,
> is that there is a preponderance of empirical evidence that comb
> material does not matter, and with the burden of proof on those who
> say it does, little has moved this topic in several years.


You're making a common error in logic.  Both sides bear the burden of 
proof.  While it's true one cannot prove a negative.  When someone 
says comb matter doesn't matter.  He or she  is making a positive 
statement about reality albeit using negative grammatical syntax.  If 
one said, I don't think the evidence supports the fact that comb 
material matters, then the burden stays with the person who comb 
material does matter.  The burden shifts, however to the person 
saying the comb material in a harmonica does not effect the 
tone.  It's a subtle difference in grammar, but a large one in 
meaning.  Vern, for example, offered proof for his position that comb 
material didn't matter.

That's why when debating theists I'm always careful in saying I don't 
the there is enough proof, or the arguments for the proof are not 
convincing.  I never say there is no God because then I'd have prove 
that.  And unlike a harp  I cannot put him in a lab or take him apart.