*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #160 on: January 02, 2014, 03:08:53 PM »
Why would anyone continue on this absurd line of argument, that they can make a claim, but the burden of proof is on the people who disagree?

It was claimed that things exist, namely that the GOCE satellite was built to take magnetism and other factors into account, and evidence must be provided for that.

So where is it?
« Last Edit: January 02, 2014, 03:11:42 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #161 on: January 02, 2014, 03:10:36 PM »
But you are not acting as a skeptic.  Skepticism is an agnostic position and makes no claims, positive or negative.

Incorrect. A skeptic is one who doubts. Please consult a dictionary.
But you don't doubt, you deny (which is a negative claim).  There is a difference.

Quote
Quote
You have not yet sufficiently supported your claim that the earth's magnetic field is a significant source of error for gravity probes.  As you say, put up or shut up.

I believe I've directed you to look at a compass to see that the magnetic field moves metal masses, which went unchallenged. It was further asserted that satellites and gravimeters are made out of metal components, which went unchallenged as well.
You are assuming that the satellite in question contains magnetic materials.  You have not demonstrated that it does.

Quote
Quote
BTW, I don't think that anyone actually claimed that the probe was magnetically shielded.  As I recall, it was more of a "how do you know that it isn't magnetically shielded?" type question.

It was claimed that the craft may be shielded, that evidence of this may be contained in its schematic, and that its designers would have further evidence of this. It does not matter if the claim is expressed in the form of a question.
That was not a claim of the satellite being shielded.  It was a suggested that the satellite might be shielded if the designers felt that the earth's magnetic filed would be a concern.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

Offline bj1234

  • *
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #162 on: January 02, 2014, 03:10:45 PM »
I did survey the most likely area the information would be found. I looked here on this forum, at information provided by the primary source making the claim.

Oh and by the way, positive claim.  Prove that data about satellites is most likely to be found on this forum.

With the ghosts example I just did demonstrate that the evidence is more likely to be found by consulting the person making the claim. I did not see anyone disagree with the demonstration.

Again, if someone is claiming that ghosts exist, but you do not, is the most likely place to find ghosts is to rent out some old houses to stay overnight in, in hopes that evidence for ghosts will appear, or is the most likely place to find evidence of a ghost from the person claiming that ghosts exist?
What does this post have to do with ghosts?  This post is asking about why you believe information about satellites is most likely to be found on this forum.

Also, I have already addressed your use of ghosts and Gods in the previous post.  The one you seems to have missed, or overlooked completely.  The post that I did have an issue with your constant attempt to shift focus elsewhere.

Quote
in the absence of evidence rendering the existence of some entity probable, we are justified in believing that it does not exist, provided that (1) it is not something that might leave no traces and (2) we have comprehensively surveyed the area where the evidence would be found if the entity existed...

The evidence where the data about a satallite is NOT most likely to be found on this forum.  Also, quit using ghosts or God as an example, because if you notice, those do not fall under absence of evidence.  See point (1) above it is not something that might leave no traces.  Last I checked, ghosts and Gods might leave no traces.

Since ghosts and Gods are beings likely to leave no evidence, whereas schematics and technical documents are likely to leave evidence, you cannot use absence of evidence to say they are none existent.  This is because the most compelling evidence for them is such a personal experience.  I have known people who were extreme atheists seemingly turn into Christians overnight.  To them, they have proof of God existing.  This proof is from an internal personal experience that you cannot see.  Same goes for ghosts.  Personal experiences. 

Where as schematics are documents, which are not likely to be found on this forum.  Two completely different types of entities.

What are you mumbling about? People claim to have photographic evidence of ghosts. People claim to have recorded audio of ghosts. People claim that ghosts destroy things spontaneously. People claim that things levitate without explanation. People claim to have found plasma residue in the locations where they appear.
Yes, and that that evidence they produce can be looked at by you.  If you have a problem with the evidence, and you claim the it is not real, the burden is on YOU to show how it is not real.  You cannot just go and say "That photo is not really showing a ghost" and walk away.  You need to back your claim up.

Quote
Barring any that, ghosts would leave traces of their existence by leaving their presence imprinted on the mind of observers. The evidence, in this case, would take the form of multiple corroborating eye witness reports.

Everything which interacts with the world leaves evidence. There is no example of anything which interacts with the world which does not leave evidence of its existence.

The burden of proof is on the positive claimant, regardless of any wikipedia author or spiritualist Tom Bishop trying to weasel himself out of the burden of proof by allowing himself to claim that God/spirits exists without the necessary evidence.that negative claims don't need to be supported.
So basically, you make a positive claim that the burden of proof is always on the backs of the ones making the positive claim.  Yet you don't back that claim up. 

When I have made a claim that ALL claims need to be backed up, I show you multiple sources supporting my claim.  Where are your sources supporting your positive claim that only positive claims need to be supported?

http://grammar.about.com/od/c/g/claimterm.htm

Quote
Generally speaking, there are three primary types of persuasive claims:

Claims of fact assert that something is true or not true.
Claims of value assert that something is good or bad, more or less desirable.
Claims of policy assert that one course of action is superior to another.
In rational arguments, all three types of claims must be supported by facts.

« Last Edit: January 02, 2014, 03:18:34 PM by bj1234 »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #163 on: January 02, 2014, 03:22:34 PM »
But you don't doubt, you deny (which is a negative claim).  There is a difference.

Incorrect. One who doubts is making an implicit disagreement with the claimant.

Quote
You are assuming that the satellite in question contains magnetic materials.  You have not demonstrated that it does.

I made no claim of the satellites composition. Please show me where I have. My only doubt was your claim that this satellite took magnetic fields and other factors into account. Unfortunately for you, you have been unable to provide studies or data showing that the trials accounted for any outside factors, showing your position to be untenable.

How can you know my claims without me claiming them? If I were to make a claim of the satellite's composition I would claim that it is composed of nothing, because it does not exist. A negative claim.

Quote
That was not a claim of the satellite being shielded.  It was a suggested that the satellite might be shielded if the designers felt that the earth's magnetic filed would be a concern.

If you are suggesting that assertion to me, then that is a claim, and you must show supporting evidence for that assertion.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2014, 03:40:47 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #164 on: January 02, 2014, 03:28:10 PM »
Why is no one arguing that in a discussion on the existence of ghosts, that the burden of proof is person who doubts or disagrees with the existence of ghosts to show that ghosts do not exist?

Perhaps because that is an ignorant argument to make?
« Last Edit: January 02, 2014, 03:41:15 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #165 on: January 02, 2014, 03:35:02 PM »
Since ghosts and Gods are beings likely to leave no evidence, whereas schematics and technical documents are likely to leave evidence, you cannot use absence of evidence to say they are none existent.  This is because the most compelling evidence for them is such a personal experience.  I have known people who were extreme atheists seemingly turn into Christians overnight.  To them, they have proof of God existing.  This proof is from an internal personal experience that you cannot see.  Same goes for ghosts.  Personal experiences. 

Where as schematics are documents, which are not likely to be found on this forum.  Two completely different types of entities.

What are you mumbling about? People claim to have photographic evidence of ghosts. People claim to have recorded audio of ghosts. People claim that ghosts destroy things spontaneously. People claim that things levitate without explanation. People claim to have found plasma residue in the locations where they appear.
Yes, and that that evidence they produce can be looked at by you.  If you have a problem with the evidence, and you claim the it is not real, the burden is on YOU to show how it is not real.  You cannot just go and say "That photo is not really showing a ghost" and walk away.  You need to back your claim up.

What are you talking about and how does it apply here?

In this situation I have NO evidence to look at. None has been provided by the person claiming that it exists. NONE. Plenty of opportunity has been given to provide it. NONE RECEIVED.

I am supposed to go talk to {mystery creator} at {mystery location}. I am supposed to go out on the internet and into the world searching for {mystery data} in {mystery location}. NO! It is the burden of the claimant to provide evidence for his positive claim!
« Last Edit: January 02, 2014, 03:37:35 PM by Tom Bishop »

Offline bj1234

  • *
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #166 on: January 02, 2014, 03:41:38 PM »
Why isn't anyone arguing that in a discussion on the existence of ghosts, that the burden of proof is person who doubts or disagrees with the existence of ghosts to show that ghosts do not exist?

Perhaps because that is an ignorant argument to make?


Yes, and that that evidence they produce can be looked at by you.  If you have a problem with the evidence, and you claim the it is not real, the burden is on YOU to show how it is not real.  You cannot just go and say "That photo is not really showing a ghost" and walk away.  You need to back your claim up.


Why do you completely ignore what I say Tom?  Is it because it shows that if you think presented evidence is not adequate, you need to back up your claim that it is not?

I present you with evidence showing gravity measurements taken from space.
You refute the evidence by claiming that the satellite did not take into account all the variables it needed to, it is YOUR claim.  You need to back up your claim that the evidence is not adequate.  You cannot simply say "Nope, that doesn't prove anything" and walk away.  You need to back it up.

Also, where is your evidence backing up your positive claim that only positive claims need to be backed up?  I have shown you that ALL claims need to be backed up.

Offline spank86

  • *
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #167 on: January 02, 2014, 03:50:00 PM »
Who walks into the doctor's and gets an appointment if it is not either a routine check up or a complaint of something specific?  I think a routine check up is the minimum care you would expect.
I know, but had to give an example based on their claim.

you did.

the original claim that if you go tell a doctor you've got cancer he will simply start treating you or running tests with no evidence presented.

He won't, He'll ask you to show some evidence and if you can't he'll suggest some possible evidence you might have noticed and if you still can't he'll ask you what makes you think you have cancer and if there's STILL no evidence being provided he'll send you on your way because he's not going to run a full set of tests just because you woke up and thought you had some nebulous cancer  of the "I don't know what", with no symptoms

No, the original claim was that the doctor will automatically assume you don't have cancer. 
I have shown that the doctor has no assumptions about your health when you walk in the door.

There are routine things that a happens at a doctors office before the doctor even sees you.  They weigh you, the get your height, they get your blood pressure.  All of these things are diagnostics to help determine if there is a significant variation to what is normal.

no.

These are things you pay for if you want a routine check up. My doctor doesn't weight me or check my height every time I go to see him. None of my doctors ever have except when I change surgery. It would be pointless, I know how tall I am and how much I weigh anyway, don't need to waste money having a doctor keep that info too. I'm not overly worried I'm in a Roald Dahl book and might get the dreaded shrinks.

He simply asks me what I'm there for and we proceed based off the evidence I provide.

If I have no evidence of a problem the doctor isn't going to go looking for it unless I press for it and provide some evidence.

Of course I suppose the doctor might weigh me if I was morbidly obese But then I guess I've already presented evidence by walking in the door.

Offline bj1234

  • *
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #168 on: January 02, 2014, 04:10:58 PM »
Who walks into the doctor's and gets an appointment if it is not either a routine check up or a complaint of something specific?  I think a routine check up is the minimum care you would expect.
I know, but had to give an example based on their claim.

you did.

the original claim that if you go tell a doctor you've got cancer he will simply start treating you or running tests with no evidence presented.

He won't, He'll ask you to show some evidence and if you can't he'll suggest some possible evidence you might have noticed and if you still can't he'll ask you what makes you think you have cancer and if there's STILL no evidence being provided he'll send you on your way because he's not going to run a full set of tests just because you woke up and thought you had some nebulous cancer  of the "I don't know what", with no symptoms

No, the original claim was that the doctor will automatically assume you don't have cancer. 
I have shown that the doctor has no assumptions about your health when you walk in the door.

There are routine things that a happens at a doctors office before the doctor even sees you.  They weigh you, the get your height, they get your blood pressure.  All of these things are diagnostics to help determine if there is a significant variation to what is normal.

no.

These are things you pay for if you want a routine check up. My doctor doesn't weight me or check my height every time I go to see him. None of my doctors ever have except when I change surgery. It would be pointless, I know how tall I am and how much I weigh anyway, don't need to waste money having a doctor keep that info too. I'm not overly worried I'm in a Roald Dahl book and might get the dreaded shrinks.

He simply asks me what I'm there for and we proceed based off the evidence I provide.

If I have no evidence of a problem the doctor isn't going to go looking for it unless I press for it and provide some evidence.

Of course I suppose the doctor might weigh me if I was morbidly obese But then I guess I've already presented evidence by walking in the door.

I don't know what you are getting on about.  You are describing a scenario that does not happen (other than the rare case of hypochondria) where someone walks into doctor claiming to have a disease without any symptoms.

The original claim was that the doctor assumes you have nothing wrong with you.

I have shown that in the two most likely scenarios, that a doctor does NOT assume anything about your health.

A routine check up, there is a minimum amount of testing done by the doctor. If the test results come back normal, the doctor then assumes there is nothing wrong.

An appointment that you make between check ups.  YOU call the doctor and give him symptoms.  Based on these symptoms, he orders tests to rule out possible diagnoses.  Prior to you calling, the doctor is not assuming anything about your health.  Once you call him, you have given him information and based on that information, might have an idea what might be wrong with you.

 So please tell me which scenario the doctor automatically assumes you have nothing wrong with you?

Rama Set

Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #169 on: January 02, 2014, 04:16:03 PM »
Since ghosts and Gods are beings likely to leave no evidence, whereas schematics and technical documents are likely to leave evidence, you cannot use absence of evidence to say they are none existent.  This is because the most compelling evidence for them is such a personal experience.  I have known people who were extreme atheists seemingly turn into Christians overnight.  To them, they have proof of God existing.  This proof is from an internal personal experience that you cannot see.  Same goes for ghosts.  Personal experiences. 

Where as schematics are documents, which are not likely to be found on this forum.  Two completely different types of entities.

What are you mumbling about? People claim to have photographic evidence of ghosts. People claim to have recorded audio of ghosts. People claim that ghosts destroy things spontaneously. People claim that things levitate without explanation. People claim to have found plasma residue in the locations where they appear.
Yes, and that that evidence they produce can be looked at by you.  If you have a problem with the evidence, and you claim the it is not real, the burden is on YOU to show how it is not real.  You cannot just go and say "That photo is not really showing a ghost" and walk away.  You need to back your claim up.

What are you talking about and how does it apply here?

In this situation I have NO evidence to look at. None has been provided by the person claiming that it exists. NONE. Plenty of opportunity has been given to provide it. NONE RECEIVED.

https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/g/goce

This link describes many technical elements of the GOCE craft including the challenges anticipated in getting accurate readings. It never mentions magnetic fields as an issue. Based on this it is safe to assume that magnetic fields were not a significant concern.

Just because you have not looked at it, does not mean it has not been provided.

Quote
I am supposed to go talk to {mystery creator} at {mystery location}. I am supposed to go out on the internet and into the world searching for {mystery data} in {mystery location}. NO! It is the burden of the claimant to provide evidence for his positive claim!

As per the source provided at least twice before, and citing a professor of philosophy who has written a book dealing with the subject matter, if you make a negative claim, such as:

The gravity space missions were uncontrolled. It does not conform to the scientific method, which demands that trials are controlled. Trying to pass off something uncontrolled and unscientific as scientific is reprehensible. I would suggest that you and the 'scientists' at NASA go back to middle school and learn some science.

you have a burden of proof.

 This is not a skeptical position but is asserting a truth which is demonstrable.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #170 on: January 02, 2014, 04:59:58 PM »
Quote
You are assuming that the satellite in question contains magnetic materials.  You have not demonstrated that it does.

I made no claim of the satellites composition. Please show me where I have.
Exactly my point.  You have not shown that the satellite in question contains any materials that would be affected by the earth's magnetic field.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

Offline spank86

  • *
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #171 on: January 02, 2014, 08:56:35 PM »
So please tell me which scenario the doctor automatically assumes you have nothing wrong with you?

The original claim was cancer.

All through that example you have yourself providing evidence to the doctor that something is wrong with you.

No assumption needed, once you've provided evidence that something is wrong the doctor finds out WHAT.

Offline bj1234

  • *
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #172 on: January 02, 2014, 09:00:47 PM »
So please tell me which scenario the doctor automatically assumes you have nothing wrong with you?

The original claim was cancer.

All through that example you have yourself providing evidence to the doctor that something is wrong with you.

No assumption needed, once you've provided evidence that something is wrong the doctor finds out WHAT.
That is exactly my point.  The doctor makes no assumption about you health.  He does not assume you have cancer. He also doesn't assume you DON’T have cancer.  He make no assumptions about your health until more evidence is collected.

Offline spank86

  • *
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #173 on: January 02, 2014, 09:03:47 PM »
So please tell me which scenario the doctor automatically assumes you have nothing wrong with you?

The original claim was cancer.

All through that example you have yourself providing evidence to the doctor that something is wrong with you.

No assumption needed, once you've provided evidence that something is wrong the doctor finds out WHAT.
That is exactly my point.  The doctor makes no assumption about you health.  He does not assume you have cancer. He also doesn't assume you DON’T have cancer.  He make no assumptions about your health until more evidence is collected.

But it is your responsibility to provide the evidence.

If you provide not a single symptom as evidence the man's not going to do a lot.


Offline bj1234

  • *
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #174 on: January 02, 2014, 09:14:16 PM »
But the whole point is that he isn't automatically defaulted into one possition about your health.  He will simply assume nothing about your health.

In this debate, the results of a satellite were provided to show the variations of gravity.  It was automatically assumed that the results were invalid because the satellite was not made to account for magnetism.  It was then claimed by Tom his claim was a negative claim and doesn't need to be backed up.  And that the default position to take is that of a negative claim.


Offline spank86

  • *
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #175 on: January 02, 2014, 09:47:11 PM »
and in the absence of any evidence that's exactly what will happen in your example.

Symptoms are evidence.

Offline bj1234

  • *
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #176 on: January 02, 2014, 11:11:39 PM »
and in the absence of any evidence that's exactly what will happen in your example.

Symptoms are evidence.

But say you walk into the doctor(Tom Bishop) and present him with some symptoms (evidence that gravity varies) and he just simply dismisses the symptoms and says "There is nothing wrong with you" (claims that the satellite didn't account for magnetism).  To which you reply "But what about the symptoms I have?" (what is wrong with the satellite readings?) To which he replies "Well, I don't need to run any tests because I said there was nothing wrong with you.  You have to prove to me there IS something wrong with you.(I am not going to even determine where there might be a problem with the evidence, just claim it is no good)

Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #177 on: January 03, 2014, 01:04:32 AM »
Why is no one arguing that in a discussion on the existence of ghosts, that the burden of proof is person who doubts or disagrees with the existence of ghosts to show that ghosts do not exist?

Perhaps because that is an ignorant argument to make?

i have. anyone who claims that ghosts do not exist is making a logically provable claim that has a burden of proof.

1. if ghosts exist, reliable and reproducable evidence of ghosts exists.
2. r&r evidence of ghosts does not exist.
3. ghosts do not exist.

easy. maybe we will disagree about the truth of one of the premises, but it's still provable.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

Offline bj1234

  • *
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #178 on: January 03, 2014, 01:56:28 AM »
Why is no one arguing that in a discussion on the existence of ghosts, that the burden of proof is person who doubts or disagrees with the existence of ghosts to show that ghosts do not exist?

Perhaps because that is an ignorant argument to make?

i have. anyone who claims that ghosts do not exist is making a logically provable claim that has a burden of proof.

1. if ghosts exist, reliable and reproducable evidence of ghosts exists.
2. r&r evidence of ghosts does not exist.
3. ghosts do not exist.

easy. maybe we will disagree about the truth of one of the premises, but it's still provable.

Then if I claim one of his premises is not valid, I need to support my claim.
I might produce a photo of, what I believe, is a ghost.

He will then take that evidence I produced and either accept it, or refute it.

If he refutes it, he then needs to support his claim.

It is that simple.  Someone makes a claim, they need to support it.  Either with evidence, or a logical conclusion.  There is no backing out of supporting a claim.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #179 on: January 03, 2014, 03:10:51 AM »
So please tell me which scenario the doctor automatically assumes you have nothing wrong with you?

The original claim was cancer.

All through that example you have yourself providing evidence to the doctor that something is wrong with you.

No assumption needed, once you've provided evidence that something is wrong the doctor finds out WHAT.
Who originally claimed cancer?  Early stages of cancer often have no symptoms.  In fact, it would be preferable to find any cancer before any symptoms become evident.  This is why routine screening (including blood work) is so important.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.