*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10077
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #120 on: December 31, 2013, 02:09:06 PM »
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?

The first claim was answered in the previous thread with evidence that the magnetic field is powerful enough to affect small metal components. When using a compass one sees that the magnetic field is powerful enough to move a metal component in the compass. With the knowledge that satellites and scientific tools such as gravimeters are made of small metal components, it follows that a satellite with a gravimeter on it would be susceptible to magnetic fields. It further follows that a small metal component in the weightlessness of space is more easily movable than a metal component in a 1g environment.

There are a couple secondary claims in the above answer, namely that satellites and gravimeters contain small metal components, and that there would be less friction in a weightless environment, which I would be required to provide evidence for if called upon.

The second claim that "magnetic influence would be a source of error that could not be accounted for" is a negative claim which I do not have the burden of proof on.

Quote
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.

It was never my claim that such schematics existed. That was your claim. It was your claim that schematics existed of a satellite with magnetically resistant features. It is your burden to provide evidence for that positive claim.

*

Online Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9768
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #121 on: December 31, 2013, 02:15:57 PM »
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?

The first claim was answered in the previous thread with evidence that the magnetic field is powerful enough to affect small metal components. When using a compass one sees that the magnetic field is powerful enough to move a metal component in the compass. With the knowledge that satellites and scientific tools such as gravimeters are made of small metal components, it follows that a satellite with a gravimeter on it would be susceptible to magnetic fields. It further follows that a small metal component in the weightlessness of space is more easily movable than a metal component in a 1g environment.

There are a couple secondary claims in the above answer, namely that satellites and gravimeters contain small metal components, and that there would be less friction in a weightless environment, which I would be required to provide evidence for if called upon.

The second claim that "magnetic influence would be a source of error that could not be accounted for" is a negative claim which I do not have the burden of proof on.


Tom, you cannot have it both ways: you yourself have said that you have not seen the schematics for the GOCE probe. As such, any claim you make about the building materials is obviously an assumption. Therefore we can reject your claim that magnetic fields are a source of error based on an invalid premise.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10077
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #122 on: December 31, 2013, 02:22:41 PM »
Tom, you cannot have it both ways: you yourself have said that you have not seen the schematics for the GOCE probe. As such, any claim you make about the building materials is obviously an assumption. Therefore we can reject your claim that magnetic fields are a source of error based on an invalid premise.

The claim that gravimeters and satellites contain small metal components is a positive claim, and would be my burden to demonstrate if called upon, perhaps with pictures of the interior of gravimeters and 'satellites'. There would be evidence that gravimeters and satellites contain metal components.

I made no claims about the schematic, that one exists, or that it would contain information on all building materials of all scientific components within the structure. The schematic is markjo's claim.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2013, 02:26:07 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 6664
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #123 on: December 31, 2013, 02:25:29 PM »
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?

The first claim was answered in the previous thread with evidence that the magnetic field is powerful enough to affect small metal components. When using a compass one sees that the magnetic field is powerful enough to move a metal component in the compass. With the knowledge that satellites and scientific tools such as gravimeters are made of small metal components, it follows that a satellite with a gravimeter on it would be susceptible to magnetic fields. It further follows that a small metal component in the weightlessness of space is more easily movable than a metal component in a 1g environment.
Not all metals are susceptible to magnetic fields.  Where is your evidence that susceptible metals were used in the probe?

Quote
Quote
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.

It was never my claim that such schematics existed. That was your claim. It was your claim that schematics existed of a satellite with magnetically resistant features. It is your burden to provide evidence for that positive claim.
How does someone build a satellite without schematics?  ???
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 #124 on: December 31, 2013, 03:16:55 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.
Actually, it was Tom's assertion that a doctor assumes that you are completely healthy when you walk in the door. 
It is my assertion that a doctor assumes nothing about your health until he runs a minimum amount of tests.

Having a conclusion about the outcome BEFORE testing is a very backwards way of doing things.

I walk into the doctor's office for a ROUTINE check up.

If the doctor assumes that I am perfectly healthy
1)Asks me if I am feeling alright
2)I reply feel fine
3)Dr says OK you are perfectly healthy because you haven't given me reason to run any sort of tests.
4)Sends me a bill in the mail

If the doctor assumes nothing
1)Nurses take down my height, weight, blood pressure
2)Doctor looks this over when he gets in, notices any changes from last year
3)Sends me to the lab for ROUTINE blood work to check cholesterol and such (not exactly sure what since I am not a doctor)
4)Analyzes the results.
5)IF anything here is out of ordinary sends me for more specialized testing.
6)Sends me a bill in the mail.

No I know for a fact that my grandmother was feeling perfectly fine when she was diagnosed with cancer.  It was her routine check up that discovered it.  If the doctor had assumed she was healthy, they wouldn't run any tests until she starts feeling ill.

Offline spank86

  • *
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #125 on: December 31, 2013, 03:23:30 PM »
Thats a routine checkup though.

Thats something you choose to do and the doctor does it because he likes money.

It's simply not relevant.

Now if you were in a country where this wasn't the case and you walked into a doctors he'd ask you why you came in and if you had no reason he'd send you on your way.

If you change your first instance to "i walk into the doctors in between ROUTINE checkups"

then chances are he WILL do what you said and send you on your way as you have no symptoms and no complaints.

A routine checkup has things already planned into it, it's like the difference between taking a car into a garage for a service (where work will be done because you pay and only because you pay) or just because you want to go gown there and say, "the cars wrong". they'll ask you whats wrong and when you don't know they'll probably look at you funny and telly you to come back when you do UNLESS you wish to pay them for random parts to be fitted or for their time in which case they might decide they just like money again.
 

Offline bj1234

  • *
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #126 on: December 31, 2013, 03:40:01 PM »
Thats a routine checkup though.

Thats something you choose to do and the doctor does it because he likes money.

It's simply not relevant.

Now if you were in a country where this wasn't the case and you walked into a doctors he'd ask you why you came in and if you had no reason he'd send you on your way.

If you change your first instance to "i walk into the doctors in between ROUTINE checkups"

then chances are he WILL do what you said and send you on your way as you have no symptoms and no complaints.

A routine checkup has things already planned into it, it's like the difference between taking a car into a garage for a service (where work will be done because you pay and only because you pay) or just because you want to go gown there and say, "the cars wrong". they'll ask you whats wrong and when you don't know they'll probably look at you funny and telly you to come back when you do UNLESS you wish to pay them for random parts to be fitted or for their time in which case they might decide they just like money again.

The claim was that a doctor assumes that you are perfectly healthy when you see him.  The claim said nothing about what kind of check up or why you might be there.  I am saying that it is absurd to claim that a doctor has any assumptions about your health when you walk in the door to his office.  Because as soon as he asks "Why are you here"  he is gathering information that can be used as a diagnostic.  If he assumed you were healthy, he would take your money, pat you on the back, and say see you later chump.

So are you saying that there are now provisions on the claim that weren't originally stated with the claim?

OK, I will go with that.

I call up the doctor to make an appointment outside of my normal annual check up.

Most likely, he is now assuming that something IS wrong with me.  Not that there is nothing wrong with me.

So now we have a completely opposite happening to what you are claiming.  Based on the symptoms and other tests, he will rule out certain possibilities.

Note in BOTH a routine check up, AND an appointment outside of a normal check up, the doctor does not assume I am perfectly healthy.  In the first case, he assumes nothing before he runs some tests, in the second case, he assumes something is wrong.  He then gathers data before ruling out certain things. 

« Last Edit: December 31, 2013, 03:57:43 PM by bj1234 »

*

Online Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9768
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #127 on: December 31, 2013, 05:32:21 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.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

Offline bj1234

  • *
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #128 on: December 31, 2013, 05:51:48 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.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10077
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #129 on: December 31, 2013, 06:00:24 PM »
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?

The first claim was answered in the previous thread with evidence that the magnetic field is powerful enough to affect small metal components. When using a compass one sees that the magnetic field is powerful enough to move a metal component in the compass. With the knowledge that satellites and scientific tools such as gravimeters are made of small metal components, it follows that a satellite with a gravimeter on it would be susceptible to magnetic fields. It further follows that a small metal component in the weightlessness of space is more easily movable than a metal component in a 1g environment.
Not all metals are susceptible to magnetic fields.  Where is your evidence that susceptible metals were used in the probe?

That is for you to demonstrate.

There are two claims:

1. The builders built the components with materials resistant to magnetism
2. The builders did not build the components with materials resistant to magnetism

The first statement/position (yours) is a positive claim. The second statement/position (mine) is a negative claim.

Quote
How does someone build a satellite without schematics?  ???

The same way someone can put a 6 cylinder BMW engine in the chassis of a Honda Accord and go directly to testing, without the need to make a schematic for it.

It also does not necessitate that the schematic even has data on the composition of the materials in the craft. Schematics usually don't even have that kind of information in them.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2013, 06:23:36 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Online Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9768
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #130 on: December 31, 2013, 06:18:54 PM »
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?

The first claim was answered in the previous thread with evidence that the magnetic field is powerful enough to affect small metal components. When using a compass one sees that the magnetic field is powerful enough to move a metal component in the compass. With the knowledge that satellites and scientific tools such as gravimeters are made of small metal components, it follows that a satellite with a gravimeter on it would be susceptible to magnetic fields. It further follows that a small metal component in the weightlessness of space is more easily movable than a metal component in a 1g environment.
Not all metals are susceptible to magnetic fields.  Where is your evidence that susceptible metals were used in the probe?

That is for you to demonstrate.

There are two claims:

1. The builders built the components with materials resistant to magnetism
2. The builders did not build the components with materials resistant to magnetism

The first statement/position (yours) is a positive claim. The second statement/position (mine) is a negative claim.

Quote
How does someone build a satellite without schematics?  ???

The same way someone can put a 6 cylinder BMW engine in the chassis of a Honda Accord and go directly to testing, without the need to make a schematic for it.

It also does not necessitate that the schematic even has data on the composition of the materials in the craft. Schematics usually don't even have that kind of information in them.

You claimed the experiment would be susceptible to magnetic interference. You have not proved this. Citing the strength of the Earth's magnetic field is only one portion of the system in question.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10077
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #131 on: December 31, 2013, 06:44:12 PM »
You claimed the experiment would be susceptible to magnetic interference. You have not proved this. Citing the strength of the Earth's magnetic field is only one portion of the system in question.

I also cited that gravimeters and satellites are made of metal components. This statement was apparently accepted and rebutted with a claim that some metal components exist which are non-ferrous, and that this craft may have been made with such magnetically-resistant materials.

Ignoring the fact that all materials are magnetic to some degree (ie. levitating frog), and there is no such thing as magnetic resistance, especially in the frictionless environment of space, there are two positions here:

1. The craft was built with magnetically-resistant materials
2. The craft was not built with magnetically-resistant materials

One is a positive claim, and the other is a negative claim.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2013, 06:55:39 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 6664
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #132 on: December 31, 2013, 07:11:53 PM »
Quote
How does someone build a satellite without schematics?  ???

The same way someone can put a 6 cylinder BMW engine in the chassis of a Honda Accord and go directly to testing, without the need to make a schematic for it.

It also does not necessitate that the schematic even has data on the composition of the materials in the craft. Schematics usually don't even have that kind of information in them.
How did BMW build their 6 cylinder engine without a schematic? 
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

*

Online Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9768
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #133 on: December 31, 2013, 07:17:20 PM »
You claimed the experiment would be susceptible to magnetic interference. You have not proved this. Citing the strength of the Earth's magnetic field is only one portion of the system in question.

I also cited that gravimeters and satellites are made of metal components. This statement was apparently accepted and rebutted with a claim that some metal components exist which are non-ferrous, and that this craft may have been made with such magnetically-resistant materials.

Ignoring the fact that all materials are magnetic to some degree (ie. levitating frog), and there is no such thing as magnetic resistance, especially in the frictionless environment of space, there are two positions here:

1. The craft was built with magnetically-resistant materials
2. The craft was not built with magnetically-resistant materials

One is a positive claim, and the other is a negative claim.

Do not confuse premises with your conclusion. You concluded that magnetic interference was a significant issue with this experiment. Where is your evidence for this?
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

Offline bj1234

  • *
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #134 on: December 31, 2013, 07:17:49 PM »
1)The craft was not built with components that are significantly affected by magnatism
2)The craft was built with components that are significantly affected by magnatism.

So now that your position is written as a positive claim, you must now back it up.

See how every claim can be written as a positive and as a negative?  A claim is a claim and every claim carries with it a burden of proof.  As it has been shown to you before.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 6664
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #135 on: December 31, 2013, 07:28:04 PM »
You claimed the experiment would be susceptible to magnetic interference. You have not proved this. Citing the strength of the Earth's magnetic field is only one portion of the system in question.

I also cited that gravimeters and satellites are made of metal components. This statement was apparently accepted and rebutted with a claim that some metal components exist which are non-ferrous, and that this craft may have been made with such magnetically-resistant materials.

Ignoring the fact that all materials are magnetic to some degree (ie. levitating frog), and there is no such thing as magnetic resistance, especially in the frictionless environment of space, there are two positions here:

1. The craft was built with magnetically-resistant materials
2. The craft was not built with magnetically-resistant materials

One is a positive claim, and the other is a negative claim.
You are claiming magnetic interference.  The levitating frog demonstration was performed by a magnetic field about 5 orders of magnitude stronger than that of the earth.  You have not shown that the earth's magnetic field is strong enough to affect otherwise nonmagnetic metals.
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 Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10077
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #136 on: December 31, 2013, 10:28:47 PM »
1)The craft was not built with components that are significantly affected by magnatism
2)The craft was built with components that are significantly affected by magnatism.

So now that your position is written as a positive claim, you must now back it up.

See how every claim can be written as a positive and as a negative?  A claim is a claim and every claim carries with it a burden of proof.  As it has been shown to you before.

Ah, but it can't be worded that way. I never made a positive claim for what the craft was made out of. I never gave a claim or opinion on whether the craft was made out of nuclear-plasma or super glue.

While it has been claimed that the craft was made out of magnetically-resistant materials, I have never made a positive claim for the composition of the craft, and therefore have no positive claim to prove.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2013, 10:37:43 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Online Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9768
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #137 on: December 31, 2013, 10:46:36 PM »
I have given evidence in the other thread that magnetism was not a significant source of error.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

Offline bj1234

  • *
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #138 on: December 31, 2013, 10:59:23 PM »
1)The craft was not built with components that are significantly affected by magnatism
2)The craft was built with components that are significantly affected by magnatism.

So now that your position is written as a positive claim, you must now back it up.

See how every claim can be written as a positive and as a negative?  A claim is a claim and every claim carries with it a burden of proof.  As it has been shown to you before.

Ah, but it can't be worded that way. I never made a positive claim for what the craft was made out of. I never gave a claim or opinion on whether the craft was made out of nuclear-plasma or super glue.

While it has been claimed that the craft was made out of magnetically-resistant materials, I have never made a positive claim for the composition of the craft, and therefore have no positive claim to prove.

Since you failed to realize the point of my post, it was to show the absurdity of your claim that "Negative claims bear no burden of proof"
And once again, here is the link from burden of proof on how to prove a negative.

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

I will quote it again for you that way you don't even have to click a link to read it.  You know so it is presented right in front of you and you don't have to search.

Quote
When the assertion to prove is a negative claim, the burden takes the form of a negative proof, proof of impossibility, or mere evidence of absence. If this negative assertion is in response to a claim made by another party in a debate, asserting the falsehood of the positive claim shifts the burden of proof from the party making the first claim to the one asserting its falsehood, as the agnostic position that "I don't believe that X is true" is different to the explicit denial "I believe that X is false"

See bolded.  But I also hear you claiming "Evidence of Absence!!!!!!!"

So I will grab that for you too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

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...

Oh look, that sentence there means that you need to look where the evidence would be found if the entity existed. 

Well, by golly, you claiming it does not exist because it isn't in your room or on the forum it is a total crock.

So let me summarize it for you.

All claims, positive or negative, carry a burden of proof.  A negative claim can be supported by the absence of evidence if you have looked in the most likely place for that evidence.  Until then, you cannot claim anything to be true or false.

Offline spank86

  • *
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #139 on: January 01, 2014, 03:39:09 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