I’m asking them this to help them consider basically what you’re saying. The honest answer from these types is that no evidence would ever prove to them that rigging doesn’t exist (not that any logically could). Their hypothesis is such that it’s unfalsifiable, and there’s an inherent lack of understanding why the burden of proof is on them.
1 Like
Proving it’s rigged would be so simple too.
1- Claim the game is rigged in a specific way.
- I believe someone made a post earlier claiming when they make a new deck, they always face a hard counter right after. (In another thread posted earlier today)
2- Prove the claim.
- Reproduce this claim with 100% results
- Ask others to try if you feel certain it’s 100%
- Record attempts
If a specific ‘The game is rigged in this way’ claim can’t be reproduced 100% of the time, then it can’t be proven.
It doesn’t have to be anything major either. Just has to be verifiable.
And if the game is rigged, but can’t be proven. It’s coded to avoid rigging 100% of the time or coded to vary it’s method of rigging. Probably some other choices as well, but this part shouldn’t be up for debate at least. Which means the “IT’S OBVIOUSLY RIGGED” crowd believe the game has been coded to look as if it’s indeed rigged (because it’s so obvious), while being able to avoid detection. I can’t think of a reason they would deliberately make it so obvious though.
It’s a running argument from incredulity.
That’s a mathematical proof. I guess if you want to get technical, one can’t empirically prove a negative.
What you mean is: if the hypothesis makes a claim regarding all games of Hearthstone. Only universal statements can be disproven with a single piece of empirical evidence.
Linguistically, we often use the word “prove” in a loose sense, to describe situations where arguments are extremely strong but not, in the formal sense of the word, a Proof with a capital P. For example, one cannot Prove with evidence that the probability of heads and tails in a coin flip is 50%. Even with a sample of two million coin flips, which just so happens to be a million heads and a million tails, you haven’t Proven that the probability is 50%, which means you haven’t Proven it’s not, say, 60%.
So understand that each and every time that I go to HSReplay or Vicious Syndicate and pull data, I am not mathematically Proving or Disproving anything, in the strict deductive sense of the word. In the same way the two million coin flips Proves nothing, the ten million Hearthstone games recorded each week Prove nothing. Deductive logic doesn’t work like that.
1 Like
Such a complete lack of understanding of the logical process saddens me. Your school failed you.
2 Likes
I’m fine with “accepted standards” of proof. That argument is more of a philosophical one than practical, and negates the entire field of science.
Look at the Higgs for an example (or even electrons)
you must be one of the p2p players who get the benefits then.
It doesn’t negate the ENTIRE field of science. There’s even an argument that it doesn’t negate science at all.
Suggested reading: https://www.raggeduniversity.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/popper-logic-scientific-discovery-ilovepdf-compressed.pdf
I did not spend a single penny in the game since 2019.
Saving the philosophical readings until I retire 
Also, Elephants are extremely adept at hiding in trees. So much so that no one has ever actually caught one in a tree.
7 Likes
Oh God. That reminds me of the tree octopus. 
Especially Australian elephants, which evidently can hide anywhere.
2 Likes
Those dang quantum elephants
3 Likes
The Australian elephant proves my point. No finite amount of measurements (each reading zero elephants) is enough to deductively disprove their existence. But nevertheless they’re a joke.
2 Likes
I’d strongly recommend this one sooner, especially if your occupation involves science.
Now you’ve made my tree elephant angry. You’ll pay for that…
… but you won’t know you’ve paid.
1 Like
Exactly… because they have to come down out of the trees to trample you.
1 Like
No it only strongly suggests it!
So I’m going to beg to differ here, as opposed to going to bed which is what I should be doing.
Firstly I can measure the mass of Australia, and then very carefully sift it down and move it one particle at a time to a different location. Using very precise (but finite) gravitational measurements I can ensure that all of the original mass is transported and deposited in the new location. Presuming I find no elephants, I am now left with the set of Australia’s complement, which is to say everything that was not in the set of Australia. From there I can write a mathematical proof that shows no elephants were hiding in Australia.