*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10173
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #100 on: December 30, 2013, 11:41:20 PM »
It is the claimant's burden to provide the evidence. It is the skeptic's burden to look at it.

If you don't like it, don't make the claim.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9850
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #101 on: December 30, 2013, 11:50:45 PM »
You made the claim without provocation. No one had brought up the issue before you. You made a claim, a negative one, and it has been shown to you, with citations that a negative claim carries a specific burden of proof which you did not fulfill. You were not sceptical; you did not cast doubt, you were sure your claim was right because you had looked at a Wikipedia page and not seen a detailed technical discussion of the GOCE craft, as if that was where you would find it. This is a display of disingenuous academic research, as bad as you can imagine. You would receive a failing grade at any academic institution for this kind of shoddy work. I seriously doubt anyone reading this thread would agree that you have a valid point.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

Offline bj1234

  • *
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #102 on: December 31, 2013, 12:01:55 AM »
Let me show you how asinine your claim that negative claims are automatically true.

P1)The window is not open
P2)The window is not closed

Both claims must be true, according to you.  Both claims don't require any burden of proof, according to you.  I mean they are both negative claims.  Oh and we also don't know who made which claim first. 

Please tell me what is the state of the window Tom?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10173
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #103 on: December 31, 2013, 12:15:38 AM »
Let me show you how asinine your claim that negative claims are automatically true.

P1)The window is not open
P2)The window is not closed

Both claims must be true, according to you.  Both claims don't require any burden of proof, according to you.  I mean they are both negative claims.  Oh and we also don't know who made which claim first. 

Please tell me what is the state of the window Tom?

The burden of proof is with the person with the positive claim. Neither of those statements are positive claims, and so neither incurs a burden of proof.

The state of the window is that that there is no evidence that it is open and there is no evidence that it is closed. The skeptic has no burden to prove anything either way since he has not made a positive claim. The burden of proof lays with anyone claiming "the window is open".

Offline bj1234

  • *
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #104 on: December 31, 2013, 12:25:10 AM »
Let me show you how asinine your claim that negative claims are automatically true.

P1)The window is not open
P2)The window is not closed

Both claims must be true, according to you.  Both claims don't require any burden of proof, according to you.  I mean they are both negative claims.  Oh and we also don't know who made which claim first. 

Please tell me what is the state of the window Tom?

The burden of proof is with the person with the positive claim. Neither of those statements are positive claims, and so neither incurs a burden of proof.

The state of the window is that that there is no evidence that it is open and there is no evidence that it is closed. The skeptic has no burden to prove anything either way since he has not made a positive claim. The burden of proof lays with anyone claiming "the window is open".

Way to back pedal on your claim that negative claims are automatically true.  Because if that were the case, the evidence shows that the window is both not open and not closed.


*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10173
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #105 on: December 31, 2013, 12:39:04 AM »
Way to back pedal on your claim that negative claims are automatically true.  Because if that were the case, the evidence shows that the window is both not open and not closed.

Negative claims are automatically true. The lack of evidence factually shows that the window is both not open and not closed.

Both statements are true. Since there is a lack of evidence, the window is not anything.

Offline spank86

  • *
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #106 on: December 31, 2013, 12:44:01 AM »
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.

Your doctor does assume that you don't have cancer before he examines you. The moment you come in you are considered at a healthy state, which is why you are not carted to the emergency room before observational and diagnostic evidence is collected.

Only until evidence is presented, can the doctor say that you have an ailment. Otherwise you do not.
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.

Probably wouldn't if you didn't give him a reason (at least not in a place where his main goal wasn't milking the insurance).

If i went to a doctor and told him I was worried I had "cancer", he'd ask if I had any symptoms or problems and when I said no he'd probably not require a load of tests to prove I was completely healthy. He'd just tell me that in the absence of any evidence there was no reason to think I had cancer of the anything.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9850
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #107 on: December 31, 2013, 12:46:53 AM »
Way to back pedal on your claim that negative claims are automatically true.  Because if that were the case, the evidence shows that the window is both not open and not closed.

Negative claims are automatically true. The lack of evidence factually shows that the window is both not open and not closed.

Both statements are true. Since there is a lack of evidence, the window is not anything.



This picture provides no evidence either way that the window is open or closed.  Does this window exist?
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

Offline bj1234

  • *
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #108 on: December 31, 2013, 12:58:19 AM »
Way to back pedal on your claim that negative claims are automatically true.  Because if that were the case, the evidence shows that the window is both not open and not closed.

Negative claims are automatically true. The lack of evidence factually shows that the window is both not open and not closed.

Both statements are true. Since there is a lack of evidence, the window is not anything.

But they both CANNOT be true.

The lack of evidence shows that we cannot make a truth claim on the state of the window.

Offline bj1234

  • *
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #109 on: December 31, 2013, 01:23:38 AM »
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.

Your doctor does assume that you don't have cancer before he examines you. The moment you come in you are considered at a healthy state, which is why you are not carted to the emergency room before observational and diagnostic evidence is collected.

Only until evidence is presented, can the doctor say that you have an ailment. Otherwise you do not.
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.

Probably wouldn't if you didn't give him a reason (at least not in a place where his main goal wasn't milking the insurance).

If i went to a doctor and told him I was worried I had "cancer", he'd ask if I had any symptoms or problems and when I said no he'd probably not require a load of tests to prove I was completely healthy. He'd just tell me that in the absence of any evidence there was no reason to think I had cancer of the anything.

I don't know about you, when I go for a check up, the Dr. checks my blood pressure, weight, heart, lungs, sends me for a blood test to check cholesterol and such.  A standard gamut of tests.  This is just a standard annual check up.  If something doesn't look or come back right, I would be sent for further exams to determine what is wrong.  The Dr doesn't assume anything about my health, and if he did, I would find a different Dr.

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 3475
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #110 on: December 31, 2013, 02:08:38 AM »
Way to back pedal on your claim that negative claims are automatically true.  Because if that were the case, the evidence shows that the window is both not open and not closed.

Negative claims are automatically true. The lack of evidence factually shows that the window is both not open and not closed.

Both statements are true. Since there is a lack of evidence, the window is not anything.

But they both CANNOT be true.

Sure they can.  It's Schrodinger's Window; the window is in a superimposed state of open and closed until it is observed to be one or the other.
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9850
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #111 on: December 31, 2013, 02:21:10 AM »
Way to back pedal on your claim that negative claims are automatically true.  Because if that were the case, the evidence shows that the window is both not open and not closed.

Negative claims are automatically true. The lack of evidence factually shows that the window is both not open and not closed.

Both statements are true. Since there is a lack of evidence, the window is not anything.

But they both CANNOT be true.

Sure they can.  It's Schrodinger's Window; the window is in a superimposed state of open and closed until it is observed to be one or the other.

Windows only display quantum effects in thought experiments!
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 6861
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #112 on: December 31, 2013, 02:48:32 AM »
Where is the evidence that a schematic exists of a satellite impervious to magnetic influence, as originally claimed?
Where is the evidence that the gravimetric equipment in question is susceptible to magnetic influence as you originally claimed or that the magnetic influence would be a source of error that could not be accounted for?  Since you haven't been able to find any of the schematics for the satellite or the data analysis protocols, you have no way of knowing if any of the materials used would be influenced by the earth's magnetic field or that any magnetic influence could not be filtered out during data analysis, therefore you have not met the burden of your claim that the earth's magnetic field is a problem for such a mission.
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.

#firePete

Offline bj1234

  • *
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #113 on: December 31, 2013, 03:25:46 AM »
Ok just gonna throw this one out here too.

There is no massive governmental cover up.
Space flight is not faked.
The experiments in EnaG were not conclusive to a flat earth.
The earth is not flat.

All negative claims. All automatically true.  I checked my mail box today and evidence to the contrary was not found in there.

That is it.  Discussion over. Shut the site down.  Conclusive proof that this theory is not true.

« Last Edit: December 31, 2013, 03:35:57 AM by bj1234 »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10173
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #114 on: December 31, 2013, 07:54:39 AM »
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.

Your doctor does assume that you don't have cancer before he examines you. The moment you come in you are considered at a healthy state, which is why you are not carted to the emergency room before observational and diagnostic evidence is collected.

Only until evidence is presented, can the doctor say that you have an ailment. Otherwise you do not.
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.

Probably wouldn't if you didn't give him a reason (at least not in a place where his main goal wasn't milking the insurance).

If i went to a doctor and told him I was worried I had "cancer", he'd ask if I had any symptoms or problems and when I said no he'd probably not require a load of tests to prove I was completely healthy. He'd just tell me that in the absence of any evidence there was no reason to think I had cancer of the anything.

Good example of absence of evidence. That is exactly what a doctor would do.

Ok just gonna throw this one out here too.

There is no massive governmental cover up.
Space flight is not faked.
The experiments in EnaG were not conclusive to a flat earth.
The earth is not flat.

All negative claims. All automatically true.  I checked my mail box today and evidence to the contrary was not found in there.

That is it.  Discussion over. Shut the site down.  Conclusive proof that this theory is not true.

Those statements would be the conclusion if no other evidence was provided by the claimants for those positive claims. However, there is evidence.

Offline spank86

  • *
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #115 on: December 31, 2013, 12:03:22 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.

Your doctor does assume that you don't have cancer before he examines you. The moment you come in you are considered at a healthy state, which is why you are not carted to the emergency room before observational and diagnostic evidence is collected.

Only until evidence is presented, can the doctor say that you have an ailment. Otherwise you do not.
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.

Probably wouldn't if you didn't give him a reason (at least not in a place where his main goal wasn't milking the insurance).

If i went to a doctor and told him I was worried I had "cancer", he'd ask if I had any symptoms or problems and when I said no he'd probably not require a load of tests to prove I was completely healthy. He'd just tell me that in the absence of any evidence there was no reason to think I had cancer of the anything.

I don't know about you, when I go for a check up, the Dr. checks my blood pressure, weight, heart, lungs, sends me for a blood test to check cholesterol and such.  A standard gamut of tests.  This is just a standard annual check up.  If something doesn't look or come back right, I would be sent for further exams to determine what is wrong.  The Dr doesn't assume anything about my health, and if he did, I would find a different Dr.

you're an American with expensive health insurance am I right?

That or you're in an at risk group for one or all of the above.

Without any symptoms they don't check for cancer right? That WAS your question.

next time you're there tell your doctor you think you may have cancer then admit the complete absence of symptoms when he asks and see if he sends you for all the tests for all the cancers or if he explains it's unlikely without any reason to think so.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 6861
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #116 on: December 31, 2013, 01:33:11 PM »
Probably wouldn't if you didn't give him a reason (at least not in a place where his main goal wasn't milking the insurance).

If i went to a doctor and told him I was worried I had "cancer", he'd ask if I had any symptoms or problems and when I said no he'd probably not require a load of tests to prove I was completely healthy. He'd just tell me that in the absence of any evidence there was no reason to think I had cancer of the anything.

Good example of absence of evidence. That is exactly what a doctor would do.
Have you been to a doctor lately?  Yes, the doctor would discuss symptoms with you.  This is the first level of investigation.  The doctor would also discuss risk factors like family history and lifestyle, check your weight, temperature, pulse, blood pressure, respiration and probably order some routine blood work.  This is known as a routine physical.
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.

#firePete

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9850
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #117 on: December 31, 2013, 01:40:37 PM »
Now Tom, can you tell the difference between a doctor, in his area of specialty, spending time with a patient, declaring an absence of evidence and you, not knowing anything about the construction of a gravity probe, reading a Wikipedia page, declaring an absence of evidence? There is a crucial difference.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

Offline bj1234

  • *
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #118 on: December 31, 2013, 01:43:07 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.

Your doctor does assume that you don't have cancer before he examines you. The moment you come in you are considered at a healthy state, which is why you are not carted to the emergency room before observational and diagnostic evidence is collected.

Only until evidence is presented, can the doctor say that you have an ailment. Otherwise you do not.
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.

Probably wouldn't if you didn't give him a reason (at least not in a place where his main goal wasn't milking the insurance).

If i went to a doctor and told him I was worried I had "cancer", he'd ask if I had any symptoms or problems and when I said no he'd probably not require a load of tests to prove I was completely healthy. He'd just tell me that in the absence of any evidence there was no reason to think I had cancer of the anything.

Good example of absence of evidence. That is exactly what a doctor would do.
Really?  My grandma was diagnosed with cancer because bloodwork from a routine physical came back abnormal.  She was then sent for further tests to finally determine what was wrong.  She had NO symptoms what-so-ever.

So please keep telling my that Doctors automatically assume that you are a perfectly healthy individual when you walk into there office.
Quote
Ok just gonna throw this one out here too.

There is no massive governmental cover up.
Space flight is not faked.
The experiments in EnaG were not conclusive to a flat earth.
The earth is not flat.

All negative claims. All automatically true.  I checked my mail box today and evidence to the contrary was not found in there.

That is it.  Discussion over. Shut the site down.  Conclusive proof that this theory is not true.

Those statements would be the conclusion if no other evidence was provided by the claimants for those positive claims. However, there is evidence.

I don't know.  According to you, I don't have to go on any wild goose chases and search it out.  It needs to be presented to me.  I looked in my mail box.  No one has mailed me anything to look at.  Evidence contrary to my claims has not presented itself to me there.  My claims are true.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2013, 01:51:15 PM by bj1234 »

Offline spank86

  • *
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #119 on: December 31, 2013, 02:00:19 PM »
Probably wouldn't if you didn't give him a reason (at least not in a place where his main goal wasn't milking the insurance).

If i went to a doctor and told him I was worried I had "cancer", he'd ask if I had any symptoms or problems and when I said no he'd probably not require a load of tests to prove I was completely healthy. He'd just tell me that in the absence of any evidence there was no reason to think I had cancer of the anything.

Good example of absence of evidence. That is exactly what a doctor would do.
Have you been to a doctor lately?  Yes, the doctor would discuss symptoms with you.  This is the first level of investigation.  The doctor would also discuss risk factors like family history and lifestyle, check your weight, temperature, pulse, blood pressure, respiration and probably order some routine blood work.  This is known as a routine physical.

Went back in July as it happens.

He asked me why I was there and after I'd provided him with evidence he ran some checks on that and gave me a prescription.

If I'd gone in and presented no symptoms he'd not have done that.

Your example was cancer. cancer. If you go in to a doctors and say you think you;ve got cancer he'll want you to provide some evidence of where or why you think that. He wont just run a raft of tests on you to explore all possible places you could have cancer because you're a hypochondriac.

This is entirely different from a routine medical where you are in specifically to have things checked up based on your medical insurance, that's got no bearing on the discussion. Although it is worth noting that a lot of what they do in these physicals is based on previous evidence provided that you are likely to be at rick of certain things, that's why they check them.