8461

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« on: January 04, 2014, 04:06:02 AM »

Nice double speak there Tom.  You should try to be a polotician.

If you cannot know for certain the state of the window you cannot make the truth claim that the window is not open.  That is a claim that requires support of some sort.

If you do not know, what is the hang up about admitting that you do not have enough evidence to make a claim.

There is support for the claim 'the window is not open'. The support for the claim that the window is not open is the absence of evidence that it is open. The statement that 'the window is not closed' is equally valid for the same reason.

All truths are determined with available evidence. "I don't know" is an excuse to not answer what the available evidence shows. The available evidence concludes that the window is NOT open. If there is no evidence, it is a not.

8462

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« on: January 04, 2014, 03:58:06 AM »

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

There was no claim that it was a controlled trial. As it is described from the sources presented on this forum, there were no mention of controls. This is evidence that there were none.

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

So the person who disagrees with a lunatic claiming that ghosts exist needs to prove, beyond an absence of evidence, that ghosts do not exist?

No way. The person claiming that ghosts exist needs to PROVE THEY EXIST. The conversation stops there once he is unable to provide the evidence for his claim.

8463

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« on: January 04, 2014, 03:39:39 AM »

tom: would you briefly explain what, in your opinion, is the difference between a 'negative' and 'positive' claim? what does that distinction mean to you?

Negative claims are an absence, not a reworded positive claim. It is not "0". It is "-".

Negative claims hold a special distinction. If I claim that the window is NOT open, it does not mean I am claiming that the window is closed. I am claiming that the window is NOT open.

It is possible that the window does not even exist, making the claims that the window is both 'not open' and 'not closed' simultaneously true.

It is also possible that the window is positively open or closed, but due lack of evidence of its positive state, and lack of evidence of its existence altogether, we are compelled to define it as it is, a NOT. Barring some sort of evidence otherwise, the window does not exist and it is neither open or closed. It is the burden of the person with the positive claim -- that the window exists, or that the window is open or closed -- to provide evidence for that claim.

We must believe in nothing because there is no evidence. Once there is evidence we can start believing in things.

8464

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Councillors unable to make new threads in the Zetetic Council board

« on: January 03, 2014, 12:51:17 AM »

I don't see a Zetetic Council board in my list.

8465

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« on: January 02, 2014, 03:35:02 PM »

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

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

What are you mumbling about? People claim to have photographic evidence of ghosts. People claim to have recorded audio of ghosts. People claim that ghosts destroy things spontaneously. People claim that things levitate without explanation. People claim to have found plasma residue in the locations where they appear.

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

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

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

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

8466

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« on: January 02, 2014, 03:28:10 PM »

Why is no one arguing that in a discussion on the existence of ghosts, that the burden of proof is person who doubts or disagrees with the existence of ghosts to show that ghosts do not exist?

Perhaps because that is an ignorant argument to make?

8467

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« on: January 02, 2014, 03:22:34 PM »

But you don't doubt, you deny (which is a negative claim).  There is a difference.

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

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

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

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

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

If you are suggesting that assertion to me, then that is a claim, and you must show supporting evidence for that assertion.

8468

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« on: January 02, 2014, 03:08:53 PM »

Why would anyone continue on this absurd line of argument, that they can make a claim, but the burden of proof is on the people who disagree?

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

So where is it?

8469

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« 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.

8470

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« 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.

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.

8471

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« 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.

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.

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.

8472

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« 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.

8473

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« 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.

8474

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« 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?

8475

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« on: January 02, 2014, 01:07:32 AM »

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?

8476

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« 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.

8477

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« 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.

8478

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« 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.

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.

8479

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« 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.

8480

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« 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.

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.