Rochey wrote:Wrong. You can always assume the negative (that there is no shield) if there is no evidence to the contrary. As in this situation.
The fact remains that there is no evidence of a shielded ground vehicle. No evidence = does not exist.
Says... You?
I certainly did not. Someone mentioned that the Argo was Starfleet's only ground vehicle. Someone (maybe me) mentioned the pathetic design, then you started claiming the possibility of a shield.
Yes, you did. I said that a theory that may add some credibility to Starfleet would be if the vehicle had a forcefield. I then said it may have one - for all we know. You then proceeded to debate this issue - you were the one who replied to my original post and contradicted it.
I have not conceeded the Argo may have a forcefield.
Have you forgotten what you wrote only yesterday?!
Here it is...
Yeah, there may be a 5% chance (or whatever) that the Argo has a shield.
You have just conceded the Argo may have a shield.
And the debate is settled.
You yourself admitted there is no evidence for a shield. Ergo we have no reason to assume the existance of a shield. That is why I stopped debating, becuase you yourself admitted you have no evidence. What was the point of this debate at all?
I don't know - I didn't start it. I said the Argo may have a shield. As there is no proof saying it doesn't, it may. People are having trouble grasping the difference between a non zero and non 1 probability and the absolute of 0 and 1. We don't have a reason to assume the existance of a shield - but the fact remains that there could be one. Just as the the anti-matter pods, as you correctly stated, may be made of candy floss.
Then what, pray tell, are you in fact claiming? There must be a concrete, definite point to your debate, I presume...
That the Argo may have a shield.
Whether that chance be 0.000001%, 50%, or 99.99999% is irrelevant. It may have a shield. The word 'may' does not imply percentage chance. It means simple not a certainty or impossibility.
The difference between an anti-matter pod made of candy floss, and a ground vehicle with adaquete forcefield protection, is that the later is much more likely - as candyfloss neither makes no physical sense, has no logical placing, and is quite impractical.
May I again say - for quite literally the umpteenth time, I am not arguing that the Argo has a shield. I am arguing the Argo may have a shield - and it may. There really is no bias or no question about it. Even if the chance of it having a shield is 0.00001%, there is still a chance.
I do believe that Rochey, Mikey, and Seafort are arguing against a point I never made - that the Argo has shields. I have never, and never will, make that point, because it's unprovable. However, saying that the Argo does not have shields, is also unprovable. So it must be somewhere 'between' there; figuratively speaking.