Show Posts

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


Messages - Tom Bishop

Pages: < Back  1 ... 462 463 [464] 465 466 ... 469  Next >
9261
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« 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.

9262
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: December 30, 2013, 11:37:12 PM »
I showed that you were ignorant of "all available evidence" contrary to your claim. What more need I do to show you were arguing from ignorance?

I looked at all available evidence in the discussion. Obviously I am not looking at all available evidence in the world. That's for the claimant to gather and present. It is not my responsibility to prove his claim for him.

9263
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: December 30, 2013, 11:23:10 PM »
No you did not. You did not read anything other than a Wikipedia page. There were sources cited in that that linked you to sources about presentations of research findings, etc..  That was presented. You did not read them. Stop pretending you were diligent.

It is the claimant's burden to post the relevant material here for all to see. I am not obligated to go on a wild goose hunts in search of material, which may or may not exist, to support random claims posted on this forum.

I would suggest to stop trying to shift the burden and start posting evidence for your claims. It is the responsibility of the claimant to demonstrate their claim, and everyone knows it.

9264
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: December 30, 2013, 11:14:58 PM »
If you are not required to look how can you claim you have looked at all available evidence ?

It is the claimant's responsibility to present the evidence. I looked at it.

9265
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: December 30, 2013, 10:49:46 PM »
Well there is plenty of evidence. Here is demonstration that you were simply arguing from ignorance.

http://bit.ly/KfYczP

Where is the evidence that a schematic exists of a satellite impervious to magnetic influence, as originally claimed?

Quote
You never looked for evidence then claim, "Based on all available evidence a truth is concluded."

It is not my burden to look for evidence. The burden of proof is on the party with the positive claim. If he lacks evidence, then there is no evidence available.

The burden of proof is never on the negative claimant. I can't walk up to people and tell them "Prove that I can't fly". They would go "what do you mean prove you can't fly? Prove that you can!'" That is exactly the same thing. The implicit truth is already that I can't fly. They have never seen flying humans and I did not provide any evidence of my claim.

9266
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: December 30, 2013, 10:17:32 PM »
If you don't want to do so that's fine but claiming you have looked for evidence is simply not true; you have demonstrated you have not looked for evidence. This supports the position that there may be evidence and if there were, you are ignorant of it. Your unwillingness to support your claims does not make you right. You unwillingness to accept your burden of proof also does not make you right. You have been shown sources supporting the position that you owe a burden of proof for your claims that "something does not exist". If you would like I can cite sources, again, showing that a negative claim requires a burden of proof.

I never said that the conclusions made were ultimate truths. They are simply current truths. Based on all available evidence a truth is concluded.

It is the responsibility of the claimant to provide evidence for his claim. If he does not, then the conclusion is that there is no evidence that X exists. There is no "maybe" or "undecided". There is no evidence and that is that.

The negative claim does not incur a burden of proof because it is automatically satisfied by nature of being a negative. We saw that the schematics of a magnetically reinforces satellite did not exist when the claimant failed to provide his obligated evidence. We saw that ghosts did not exist when the claimant failed to provide his obligated evidence. The primary sources on the matter could not provide evidence of existence, and so it is evidence of absence. The burden of proof has already been met.

9267
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: December 30, 2013, 10:06:50 PM »
Last I checked, a doctor doesn't assume anything until he checks you out, gets some diagnostic tests done, then compares the results to get a diagnosis of your health.  If the doctor assumed that you did not have cancer, he would not perform any sort of tests.

He's doing it for the money.

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

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

You are paying a doctor to perform a service. It is not a debate. "Burden of proof" does not apply.

9268
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: December 30, 2013, 10:00:23 PM »
It's actually simpler. You have no idea if the ESA has evidence of the shielding on the satellite because you have not even bothered to look. You do not even know if shielding is an appropriate control for the type of variable you are concerned about. You are ignorant on this matter. It is the height of disingenuousness to claim you know anything about the experiment after reading a Wikipedia page.

It is not my responsibility to go out on a wild goose hunt whenever someone blabbers some claim on this forum. It is the responsibility of the claimant.

9269
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: December 30, 2013, 09:42:02 PM »
This is where you are making your faulty leap of logic.  You argument of ignorance.  Which is assuming that since it has not been proven to be true, it must be false.  You completely forget the third option of, we just do not have enough evidence to support either proving or disproving the statement.

There is no "undecided" option. There is not a lack of evidence. We have a running collection of evidence. The primary source making the claim has failed to provide any evidence to back that claim. This is evidence that the claim is false.

Quote
If you want to cast doubt on the claim that the satellite was adequate source for determining gravity variations, you can't make the claim that the satellite was not shielded.  You need to make the claim that "Since we do not know if the satellite was properly shielded, we cannot assume the accuracy of the experiment."

I really don't understand how you are not understanding this.

It's very simple. The primary source claiming that the satellite was shielded has not provided evidence of
that claim. From our experience we also find an absence of evidence.

If the only evidence we have is that is does not exist the conclusion must be, necessarily, that it does not exist. Until evidence is presented otherwise, this is the current truth.

We cannot say with honesty "there may be no evidence of ghosts, but we cannot assume that ghosts don't exist". The evidence is that ghosts do not exist, and that is the conclusion.

9270
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: December 30, 2013, 05:16:46 PM »
Last I checked, a doctor doesn't assume anything until he checks you out, gets some diagnostic tests done, then compares the results to get a diagnosis of your health.  If the doctor assumed that you did not have cancer, he would not perform any sort of tests.

He's doing it for the money.

If you would like to pay me a physician's wages to do tests and collect evidence, I would be happy to. Otherwise it is not my burden to provide evidence for the positive claims which you or anyone else has made.

9271
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: December 30, 2013, 05:03:34 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, as far as he is concerned, you do not.

9272
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: December 30, 2013, 04:59:16 PM »
Tom-Absence of evidence is evidence of absence if you exhaust the domain of the claim. If the absence is due to ignorance, it is not sufficient to fulfill a burden. For example, not finding specs of an ESA satellite experiment in your briefcase would not be sufficient to prove an absence of evidence. You have not looked anywhere near where evidence would be should you assume its existence.

I am looking right here on this forum where it is claimed that schematics exist of a certain type of magnetically-resistant satellite. This is the only place I have seen where is is suggested that such a thing exists, therefore this is the most likely place to look. The party claiming that it exists must post it here for all to see.

9273
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: December 30, 2013, 04:56:32 PM »
Oh and yes there is a huge difference between making a claim and stating a belief.

Stating

There is no X.

Is not the same as saying

As far as I know, there is no X.

The first you are asserting that you know, for a fact, and that you have examined all sorts of research or data.
The second, you are acknowledging that you have a limited grasp on the subject, but from what you have seen, X does not exist.

Those statements are the same. You cannot speak from an ultimate truth in one sentence and then from your own belief in the next. They are both your belief.

9274
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: December 30, 2013, 04:52:05 PM »
Well see in your example of the bug in a program, the programmer is looking for a bug where it is most likely to be.  In the program.  Not some other program or in your drawers.  He is looking in the program.  If he can't find a bug where a bug is supposed to be, that is supporting his claim.  However, he sure wouldn't have a long career as a programmer if he developed his code, submitteded it and claimed the are no bugs in this program.  I don't need to test it.  It isn't my responsibility to do so. 

Just as if I claimed there is no handkerchief is Pizza's pocket, it is my burden to actually check Pizza's pocket for a lack of handkerchief.

No, it is not your burden to check, or the programmer's for that matter. The burden is on the party with the positive claim.

If someone claims that a bug in the software exists, that person would be burdened to demonstrate or provide information on that bug. The programmer wouldn't be burdened with searching through a needle in a haystack of code for some sort of bug. There is already evidence that a bug does not exist. The claimant must demonstrate the assertion.

In a discussion of ghosts it is not my burden to 'prove that ghosts don't exist'. It is the burden of the claimant to demonstrate the existence of ghosts. There is already evidence that ghosts do not exist.

In a discussion of the handkerchief, the current evidence in the discussion is that there is no such handkerchief.

In a discussion of whether schematics exist of a gravity measuring space ship built to withstand magnetic interference, the evidence is that there is no such schematic.

Positive evidence is required for all of that. Our current knowledge and experience tells us that none of that exists. The most likely place to check for those things is with the party with that claim. If that party cannot provide the necessary evidence, then the proof falls flat.

9275
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: December 30, 2013, 06:46:37 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.

Quote from: Rama Set
Quote
My experience says that there is no handkerchief. Your experience says that there is no handkerchief. No one has seen any such handkercheif. There is no handkerchief until demonstrated otherwise.

Incorrect.  Your ignorance does not satisfy a burden of proof.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The websites saying otherwise are authored by people trying to justify their belief in ghosts, aliens, and magical fairies who live in the sky.

See: http://oyhus.no/AbsenceOfEvidence.html

Quote
an anecdote from Roar Lauritzsen about Absence of Evidence:

"Suppose you are a programmer, and you are looking for bugs in a program. At first you cannot sleep at night because you are convinced that there must be a bug somewhere, you just haven't found it yet. To find the bug, you test the program to see if you find something that doesn't work as you expected. If you found something, it would be evidence that there was a bug. If you test the program a lot, and still find no evidence of a bug, this increases your confidence that there is no bug. In other words, it counts as evidence for the absence of a bug, and you are finally able to sleep better.

After a while, your program is thoroughly tested, and you still find no evidence for a bug. You begin to suspect that there might not be a bug after all. However, if there is no bug, you will have no purpose as a programmer. You feel as if your life depends on the existence of a bug. You are now looking for the Bug that will save you. You believe that there must be a Bug, so you test your program even more thoroughly. When you still cannot find any evidence for a Bug, you start to rationalize: Although I cannot find any Bug, that does not prove that there is no Bug. You are now a true believer in the Bug."


Quote from: Rama Set
Quote
If anyone is claiming existence of a handkerchief, the burden is on them.

What if no one has claimed the existence of a handkerchief, but you are merely asserting it?

If no one has claimed the existence of a handkerchief and I had merely asserted that there is no handkerchief, then it is still not my burden to demonstrate that there is no handkerchief beyond the evidence which already tells us that there is none. The burden was already met with evidence. It is this evidence which must be contradicted.

9276
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: December 30, 2013, 06:09:26 AM »
No negative claims are not automatically proven.  It has been shown to you multiple times that negative claims also carry a burden of proof.  Why do you assume that negative claims are automatically true?

The negative claims automatically meets the burden of proof by virtue of being a negative.

Quote
Use Pizza's example

I claim
"There is no handkerchief in Pizza's pocket"

The base truth is that there is no handkerchief in Pizza's pocket. My experience says that there is no handkerchief. Your experience says that there is no handkerchief. No one has seen any such handkerchief. All available evidence says there is none, therefore there is no handkerchief until demonstrated otherwise. If anyone is claiming existence of a handkerchief, the burden is on them.

Quote
In reality, the only position I can take, without any further evidence, is that

"I do not know if Pizza has a handkerchief in his pocket"

Until I check Pizza's pockets, or someone else does, I cannot know for certain what is in Pizza's pocket.

When we speak, we speak from our own knowledge. If you make a statement that "diamonds are the hardest rock" it is because you believe that diamonds are the hardest rock. There is no difference if you preface the statement with "As far as I know, diamonds are the hardest rock". Each statement is equally of your own belief.

If I state that there is no handkerchief in Pizza's pocket I am speaking truthfully from my own knowledge, and therefore that can be said. It is impossible to speak from someone else's knowledge or from a universal truth. It is the present knowledge in the discussion.

9277
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: December 30, 2013, 04:20:05 AM »
I'm disputing that negative/positive is a meaningful distinction for an assertion, and I'm disputing that an assertion is relieved of its burden of proof simply because it contains a negation.  All assertions have a burden of proof.  Assertions are not negative or positive.  That's not a real thing.

I'm most strongly disputing that one should assume any claim containing a negation to be true until proven otherwise.  Every claim with a negation can be reformulated into a claim without one. 'Not P is true' is the same as 'P is false.'  It makes no sense to suggest that we should believe any and all assertions that contain negations until the contrary assertion has been proven.

This iteration of the forums are new, but there were lots of posts from different users on .org that commonly made the claim that 'negative claims cannot be proven.'  The gravity thread made me think of those, so I posted this thread.

The burden of proof is clearly on the person with the positive claim. In an argument on the existence of ghosts, if someone claims that ghosts exist, is it the burden of that person to provide evidence for the existence of ghosts? Or, is it the burden of the person claiming that ghosts do not exist to provide evidence of their non-existence?

Clearly, the burden is on the person claiming that ghosts exist to prove that claim. There is already plenty of evidence that ghosts DON'T exist. The burden of the skeptic to provide evidence that ghosts don't exist has been automatically met, by virtue of a life long experience that ghosts do not exist.

This is why the burden is always on the person with the positive claim. The negative claim is trivial to prove.

Incorrect:

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

It may be trivial to fulfill your burden in some cases, but that does not free one from the burden.  Anytime a truth is asserted it carries a burden of proof.  It is very simple.

A negative claim is such that it is already automatically proven. I don't need to prove that ghosts don't exist because their non-existence is already established by experience.

The burden is on the person claiming that ghosts exist. My responsibility for proving that ghosts do not exist extends to me opening my eyes and seeing that they do not exist.

9278
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: December 30, 2013, 03:57:18 AM »
I'm disputing that negative/positive is a meaningful distinction for an assertion, and I'm disputing that an assertion is relieved of its burden of proof simply because it contains a negation.  All assertions have a burden of proof.  Assertions are not negative or positive.  That's not a real thing.

I'm most strongly disputing that one should assume any claim containing a negation to be true until proven otherwise.  Every claim with a negation can be reformulated into a claim without one. 'Not P is true' is the same as 'P is false.'  It makes no sense to suggest that we should believe any and all assertions that contain negations until the contrary assertion has been proven.

This iteration of the forums are new, but there were lots of posts from different users on .org that commonly made the claim that 'negative claims cannot be proven.'  The gravity thread made me think of those, so I posted this thread.

The burden of proof is clearly on the person with the positive claim. In an argument on the existence of ghosts, if someone claims that ghosts exist, is it the burden of that person to provide evidence for the existence of ghosts? Or, is it the burden of the person claiming that ghosts do not exist to provide evidence of their non-existence?

Clearly, the burden is on the person claiming that ghosts exist to prove that claim. There is already plenty of evidence that ghosts DON'T exist. The burden of the skeptic to provide evidence that ghosts don't exist has been automatically met, by virtue of a life long experience that ghosts do not exist.

This is why the burden is always on the person with the positive claim. The negative claim is trivial to prove.

9279
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: December 30, 2013, 02:59:58 AM »
Why was this thread made? Who said it was impossible to prove a negative?

9280
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: December 28, 2013, 07:00:36 AM »
Basically what is bolded is exactly what you have done.

You claim that lack of evidence proves you right.  You then push the responsibility of looking for any sort of evidence to others even when you admit that you haven't looked in the most likely place that this evidence would exist if it does exist.

I am looking in the most likely place. I'm looking right here on this forum, awaiting claimants to provide the obligated evidence for their claims. It is not my responsibility to find the evidence. See the quote above.

Pages: < Back  1 ... 462 463 [464] 465 466 ... 469  Next >