[furball4paws]

LW's use of white crow, in no way invalidates the fallacy. Albinism is common crows is "Relatively frequent" with approximately 100 sightings. In fact albinism is quite common in many birds (especially Turdus migratorius, so you can find a picture. But the use of "White Crow Fallacy" is simply illustrative, as you know. You just chose to ignore it.

Ref. John K. Terres. 1980. The Audubon Encyclopedia of North American Birds

[LogicWings]

But the use of "White Crow Fallacy" is simply illustrative

Thanks. I ran across the WCF in some paper somewhere and thought the guy explained the fallacy the Burden of Proof issue is crystal clarity. Funny how so many people just don't get it.

I'm really sorry I was too busy and didn't get on this thread from the beginning. I saw the article on TCS and thought it was excellent. By the time I got to Freeperland the thread had over 700 posts. So I just ripped off a couple of jabs. I haven't even had time to look over the whole thread. I'm sure it is great fun.

[r9etb]

Albinism is common crows is "Relatively frequent" with approximately 100 sightings.

Indeed -- and thus the statement "there are no white crows" is refuted, and we need not continue casting about for proof of the statement.

But the use of "White Crow Fallacy" is simply illustrative, as you know. You just chose to ignore it.

No, I simply chose to demonstrate that one need not natter on about the supposed difficulties of proof once the original statement has been refuted. LW's original statement is poppycock precisely because it has been refuted.