*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 6666
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #140 on: January 01, 2014, 04:24:33 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
Incorrect.  Since early stages of cancer often exhibit no obvious symptoms, the doctor will most likely order some routine tests just to be safe. 
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 spank86

  • *
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #141 on: January 01, 2014, 04:27:31 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
Incorrect.  Since early stages of cancer often exhibit no obvious symptoms, the doctor will most likely order some routine tests just to be safe.
Which tests would these be?

For cancer of the what?

Bear in mind you're not telling him any symptoms or that anythings wrong, you're fine, you just think you've got cancer for no reason at all.

You had your routine checkup 6 months ago, he's not going to randomly run a load of tests for stuff unless it's purely an exercise in charging your health provider.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 6666
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #142 on: January 01, 2014, 04:50:44 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
Incorrect.  Since early stages of cancer often exhibit no obvious symptoms, the doctor will most likely order some routine tests just to be safe.
Which tests would these be?

For cancer of the what?

Bear in mind you're not telling him any symptoms or that anythings wrong, you're fine, you just think you've got cancer for no reason at all.

You had your routine checkup 6 months ago, he's not going to randomly run a load of tests for stuff unless it's purely an exercise in charging your health provider.
CBC and blood chemistry tests, most likely.  These are routine tests that can pick up quite a few irregularities.
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 #143 on: January 01, 2014, 04:56:46 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. 

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10080
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #144 on: January 02, 2014, 01:07:32 AM »
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.

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.

If someone is claiming that ghosts exist, and I do not believe that, is the most likely place to find evidence of ghosts to rent out some old houses to stay the night 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?

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9769
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #145 on: January 02, 2014, 01:30:46 AM »
What a terrible cop out.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

Offline bj1234

  • *
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #146 on: January 02, 2014, 01:36:20 AM »
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.

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.

If someone is claiming that ghosts exist, and I do not believe that, is the most likely place to find evidence of ghosts to rent out some old houses to stay the night 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?

Since you seem to be having a reading comprehension problem, I will again post this for you.

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.

Offline bj1234

  • *
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #147 on: January 02, 2014, 01:40:01 AM »
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.





*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 6666
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #148 on: January 02, 2014, 02:52:49 AM »
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.
Why would you expect to find schematics to an unnamed gravity probe here?  I'd think that the people who built the probe would be a far more likely source for 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 Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10080
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #149 on: January 02, 2014, 06:48:14 AM »
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?
« Last Edit: January 02, 2014, 01:04:56 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10080
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #150 on: January 02, 2014, 07:09:10 AM »
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.
Why would you expect to find schematics to an unnamed gravity probe here?  I'd think that the people who built the probe would be a far more likely source for schematics.

I would think that the most likely source for schematics of a magnetically-resistant gravity space ship is with the person making the claim that it exists.

I don't see that anyone else is making such a claim. There is only one person making that claim here. Claiming that some unnamed third parties have evidence of the claim is yet another positive claim which needs to be demonstrated by the claimant. The burden is not on the skeptic to find the unnamed creator of a gravity mystery machine.

The burden is on the claimant. And he needs to put up or shut up.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2014, 01:07:09 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9769
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #151 on: January 02, 2014, 12:47:14 PM »
Again Tom, it has been quoted to you that making a negative claim shifts the burden of proof back to you. You have a burden to fulfill and saying that you could not find the evidence on your opponents side is a weak attempt to move the BOP back again.  Do you appreciate these rules of debate? 
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 6666
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #152 on: January 02, 2014, 01:25:23 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.
Why would you expect to find schematics to an unnamed gravity probe here?  I'd think that the people who built the probe would be a far more likely source for schematics.

I would think that the most likely source for schematics of a magnetically-resistant gravity space ship is with the person making the claim that it exists.

I don't see that anyone else is making such a claim. There is only one person making that claim here. Claiming that some unnamed third parties have evidence of the claim is yet another positive claim which needs to be demonstrated by the claimant. The burden is not on the skeptic to find the unnamed creator of a gravity mystery machine.

The burden is on the claimant. And he needs to put up or shut up.
But you are not acting as a skeptic.  Skepticism is an agnostic position and makes no claims, positive or negative.  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.

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. 
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 #153 on: January 02, 2014, 01:33:25 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.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10080
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #154 on: January 02, 2014, 02:38:24 PM »
Again Tom, it has been quoted to you that making a negative claim shifts the burden of proof back to you. You have a burden to fulfill and saying that you could not find the evidence on your opponents side is a weak attempt to move the BOP back again.  Do you appreciate these rules of debate?

The burden of proof is on the claimant making the positive claim. It cannot be shifted back to the skeptic to disprove him. The person challenging the claimant is not under a burden of proof to "disprove him" because he made a "negative claim" in his challenge.

Your assertion that the skeptic bears the burden of proof is a joke. The claimant must PROVE HIS CLAIM.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10080
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #155 on: January 02, 2014, 02:42:10 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.

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.

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.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2014, 02:45:27 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9769
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #156 on: January 02, 2014, 02:51:40 PM »
Again Tom, it has been quoted to you that making a negative claim shifts the burden of proof back to you. You have a burden to fulfill and saying that you could not find the evidence on your opponents side is a weak attempt to move the BOP back again.  Do you appreciate these rules of debate?

The burden of proof is on the claimant making the positive claim. It cannot be shifted back to the skeptic to disprove him. The person challenging the claimant is not under a burden of proof to "disprove him" because he made a "negative claim" in his challenge.

Your assertion that the skeptic bears the burden of proof is a joke. The claimant must PROVE HIS CLAIM.

So you do not agree with the validity of the sources cited that contradict your position?
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10080
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #157 on: January 02, 2014, 02:53:41 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.

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 trying to weasel himself out of the burden of proof by allowing himself to claim that God/spirits exists without the necessary evidence.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2014, 02:57:56 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9769
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #158 on: January 02, 2014, 03:00:20 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.

doubt
verb (used with object)
1. to be uncertain about; consider questionable or unlikely; hesitate to believe.
2. to distrust.
3. Archaic. to fear; be apprehensive about.

-from dictionary.com

You will notice that none of the definitions involve making truth claims such as you have made.

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.

It is your job to prove your assertions.  Please show that satellites and gravimeters are made of metal and that this is crucial to the topic as is implied in your claim.

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.

In the other thread I cited a report discussing the major issues and sources of error in the experiment.  There was a distinct lack of discussion of the Earth's magnetic field which would qualify as an absence of evidence.  This supports the position that the Earth's magnetic field is not a significant source of error.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10080
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« Reply #159 on: January 02, 2014, 03:03:55 PM »
Again Tom, it has been quoted to you that making a negative claim shifts the burden of proof back to you. You have a burden to fulfill and saying that you could not find the evidence on your opponents side is a weak attempt to move the BOP back again.  Do you appreciate these rules of debate?

The burden of proof is on the claimant making the positive claim. It cannot be shifted back to the skeptic to disprove him. The person challenging the claimant is not under a burden of proof to "disprove him" because he made a "negative claim" in his challenge.

Your assertion that the skeptic bears the burden of proof is a joke. The claimant must PROVE HIS CLAIM.

So you do not agree with the validity of the sources cited that contradict your position?

Which sources?

There are plenty of people on the net arguing that the person with the negative claim incurs a burden of proof. This is false. The burden of proof is on the positive claimant. The burden of proof is not on the skeptic who doubts his claim, because he made a "negative claim" in his disagreement.

Anyone with an IQ above room temperature understands that if I walk up to someone and claim that I can fly up into the air without assistance, the burden of proof is on me, and not on the skeptic who disagrees with my claim.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2014, 03:06:49 PM by Tom Bishop »