Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - markjo

Pages: < Back  1 ... 102 103 [104] 105 106 ... 109  Next >
2061
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Police body cameras
« on: December 30, 2013, 09:04:45 PM »
What purpose would the always-on gps serve?
So that they can figure out where the most popular doughnut shops are.

2062
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: December 30, 2013, 07:47:02 PM »
In a discussion of whether schematics exist of a gravity measuring space ship built to withstand magnetic interference, the evidence is that there is no such schematic.
I'm thinking that the people who designed and built that gravity measuring space ship would disagree with your "evidence".

By the way, did you ever mention which specific gravity measuring space ship you're referring to?  I ask because there have been several such probes.

2063
Announcements / Re: New BBCode
« on: December 30, 2013, 07:43:19 PM »
The point is that you can mouse-over the abbreviation to see what it stands for. It seems the support for this code isn't very universal, as I first viewed this thread on my phone and didn't find the code to have that functionality on my browser.
That's probably because touch screen interfaces generally have a hard time properly generating mouse over events.  I could be wrong but it might have something to do with the lack of a mouse.

Quality insight as always, markjo.
Hey, I'm not the one complaining about not being able to mouse over on a phone.

2064
Announcements / Re: New BBCode
« on: December 30, 2013, 05:32:06 PM »
The point is that you can mouse-over the abbreviation to see what it stands for. It seems the support for this code isn't very universal, as I first viewed this thread on my phone and didn't find the code to have that functionality on my browser.
That's probably because touch screen interfaces generally have a hard time properly generating mouse over events.  I could be wrong but it might have something to do with the lack of a mouse.

2065
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: December 30, 2013, 05:27:36 PM »
Last I checked, a doctor doesn't assume anything until he checks you out, gets some diagnostic tests done, then compares the results to get a diagnosis of your health.  If the doctor assumed that you did not have cancer, he would not perform any sort of tests.

He's doing it for the money.

If you would like to pay me a physician's wages to do tests and collect evidence, I would be happy to. Otherwise it is not my burden to provide evidence for the claims or assertions which you or anyone else has made.
Tom, payment has nothing to do with burden so please refrain from such inane comments.  They add nothing at all to the discussion. 

A doctor is responsible for performing a certain amount of diagnostic investigation before issuing a diagnosis.  If that investigation reveals no anomalies, then the diagnosis is healthy.  However, if the doctor does no such investigation, then he may miss a potentially serious condition that may lead to a malpractice law suit.

2066
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: December 30, 2013, 02:25:18 PM »
The base truth is that you do not know for certain.

The available evidence says that there is no handkerchief, therefore that is what is concluded. The conclusion stays that way until positive evidence is presented of this handkerchief.
Tom, please define "available evidence".  For example, do you want your doctor to declare that you do not have cancer before or after he examines you?  After all, if he doesn't examine you, then he can't find any evidence of cancer. 

2067
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: December 30, 2013, 04:31:11 AM »
Why was this thread made?

To determine the validity of assertions like this one:
A negative claim is such that it is already automatically proven.

2068
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: December 29, 2013, 05:03:51 PM »
No one is doing that.
Markjo is, by trying to "assert a negative". Again, assertions deal with truths, not falsities. I've already presented evidence to that fact, so unless you'd like to counter it with something credible, I'm going to consider this settled.
I think that you are confusing the concepts of positive/negative and true/false.  They are not the same.

2069
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: December 29, 2013, 12:50:03 AM »
And attacking a straw man won't make you right.
You're right, I shouldn't waste my time attacking your straw man. Now, if you'd like to add something to this discussion, feel free to, but otherwise, please stop attempting to derail this thread.
I'm sorry if you are unable to understand that it is possible to assert a negative claim and therefore incur a burden to support that negative claim.

2070
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
« on: December 28, 2013, 11:56:19 PM »
It wasn't because of the controversy that they caved?  ???
It was because backlash against A&E's decision was worse than the backlash against the initial controversy.

2071
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: December 28, 2013, 11:49:04 PM »
I negate your premise.
Feel free to. It won't make you any less wrong.
And attacking a straw man won't make you right.

2072
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: December 28, 2013, 11:08:43 PM »
Assertions of any and all sorts deal with things that are true (or presumed to be true), not things that are false.
I assert that your premise is false.

2073
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: December 28, 2013, 05:34:16 PM »
To assert means to state positively.
To state positively is not the same as stating a positive.  I can positively state that there is no elephant in my backyard.

2074
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: December 28, 2013, 09:34:47 AM »
It is not my responsibility to prove anything either way. The act of challenging the critic to "prove me wrong" is the fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

Quote
The philosophical burden of proof or onus (probandi) is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.

...

Holder of the burden

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed". This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question.

See bolded.
What about the sentence before the bolded one?  It makes no distinction between positive and negative claims regarding the burden assumed by the one making the claim.

2075
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched
« on: December 28, 2013, 03:57:41 AM »
The Hobbit 2 was a considerable improvement over the first, mostly because it jumps straight into the story instead of spending 40 minutes sitting around. The action scenes, especially the barrel scene, were fantastic, and the dragon was some damn fine CGI. It did drag for some bits (although I barely noticed) and the Tauriel love triangle was a bit grating, but overall it was pretty good. I'm not sure whether I liked how they ended it, but I definitely want to see the next one.

I heard it was mostly fanfiction that had nothing to do with the book.
Originally it was supposed to be 2 movies, but when it got expanded to 3, they wound up drawing from other Tolkien books to act as filler.

2076
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Honey & Lemon
« on: December 28, 2013, 03:49:33 AM »
Hey, if you're into bee vomit, then have at it.

2077
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
« on: December 28, 2013, 03:27:36 AM »
I guess that's what makes me different from other people, it is literally impossible to offend me, and I'm confused when others are offended by trivial things.
Obviously those who are offended don't consider offensive things to be trivial.

2078
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: December 28, 2013, 12:43:32 AM »
Who said it was impossible to prove a negative?
Does this mean that you admit that you must now start supporting your negative claims?

2079
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« on: December 28, 2013, 12:40:05 AM »
If a gust of wind puts 1g of pressure down on the gnome, then that gnome is 1g heavier.

If a gust of wind attacks the gnome from the side or from below, then that also affects the gnome's weight.
Then it's a good thing that's it's relatively trivial to avoid such wind gusts.

Quote
It's his research. I did not bring up the possibility that controlled trials took place at this lab.
No, but you did assert that you looked for documentation and could find none.  He was merely suggesting a place to continue your search for documentation.

2080
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« on: December 27, 2013, 09:43:37 PM »
.01g is one one-hundredth the weight of a dollar bill. Air currents are certainly strong enough to move a dollar bill, let alone something one one-hundredth the weight.
But is it enough to move a 300 gram gnome?

Quote
There is a complete lack of documentation?  You contacted Snolab to verify this? Why are you starting down your fallacious and odious one of thought again?

Where is this documentation?

I never said there was, but if there is, Snolab would be a good place to start looking.

Then start looking.
Tom, why is it his responsibility to do your research?  ???

Pages: < Back  1 ... 102 103 [104] 105 106 ... 109  Next >