On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 12:09:11 +1000, Tim Lambert wrote: >>if you apply it to the following clause instead, the "opposite" >>of "gun bans reduce crime" is "gun bans do not reduce crime," not "gun bans >>increase crime."
>No it isn't. I just checked by asking my kids "What is the opposite >of reduce?". Both said "increase". I'm sure Tim realizes the truth of the old statistical saying that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. In a similar manner, the absence of a reduction does not necessarily mean the presence of an increase, or vice versa. I've forgotten what the name given to this proposition is, but it's one that was taught in my public administration classes in what seems like eons ago. In public policy, as in statistics, one needs to be exceedingly careful in parsing things out.
