? Please, try not to tell me what I may or may not be assuming. You either attempted to bypass my argument or you simply did not fully comprehend what I posted. I'm dealing, as you claim to be, with facts. All I requested is that Syphon be consistent with his logical reasoning. He claimed that the absence of evidence of x is reason to believe in the true absence of x. I asked if that reasoning was consistent when applied to claims of penile enlargement and all I got was a bunch of bullshit and skirting the issue. I hope this makes it easier for you to understand.
I did not attempt to bypass your argument, or fail to fully comprehend what you posted. I was giving reasons why your analogy was false. Perhaps you have failed to understand what I posted.
There is a difference between arriving at a conclusion that is unsupported by the available data when that data is plentiful and self-consistent and formulating a theory by logically filling in the gaps when that data is extremely scarce. If there is little available data, then it is also necessary to ask why that might be before dismissing a particular theory.
LPSG contains a great many pictures of erect penises, yet the number of apparently genuine pictures of 8" NBP penises is vanishingly small. If those who believe that 8" NBP penises are more common than the surveys suggest are right, then they are underepresented on LPSG. Given that LPSG is a site specifically created for those with large penises, the only way to explain this is to argue that for some reason men with 8"NBP penises are more reluctant to show their penises than smaller men. Unfortunately this directly contradicts one of the central arguments of those that dismiss the surveys - i.e that huge men are MORE confident about showing themselves - and it is therefore self-evidently illogical to use Argument From Ignorance (the absence of evidence construct) in this case.
By contrast with LPSG most PE sites have relatively few pictures posted by members. Now this could be taken as evidence (not proof) that PE doesn't work, since there has been no controlled study to demonstrate that it does. I happen to believe that it does, but I can't empirically or axiomatically prove it to a skeptic and therefore I wouldn't try.
On the other hand you could argue that since those practising PE produce relatively few pictures regardless of success or failure, PE-ers as a group tend not to post pictures. You then need to find logical reasons why before you conclude that the lack of pictures is evidence that PE doesn't work.
It is perfectly logical to argue that those on PE sites will tend to have issues about their penis size and would therefore be reluctant to post pictures of their original size. Therefore it is not possible to definitively conclude that the lack of pictures is evidence that PE doesn't work - Argument From Ignorance applies in this case.
Arguing that the lack of pictures of 8"NBP penises on LPSG is further evidence to support the conclusions of numerous surveys that such penises are very rare, is not a case of Argument From Ignorance; rather it is the case that those disputing that argument - those who claim that huge penises are more common than surveys have found, are victims of Bertrand Russell's "Celestial Teapot analogy".
In the same way that the burden of proof is not on those who dispute the unfalsifiable claim that an undetectable giant teapot is orbiting the Sun, the burden of proof is not on those who dispute the fact that 8" penises and longer occur with greater frequency than any survey has ever found.
