[Tom Bishop]

It is true that you cannot empirically prove a negative but all this means is that you should not make such a truth claim to begin with unless you want to make an inductive argument.

Tom laid a big truth claim on the table phrased as a negative, provided evidence and then said prove me wrong. To boot he used an obviously incomplete reference (Wikipedia ) and claimed he had read all there was to read, which is an evident falsehood.

I made no positive claim. I asked for evidence of your positive claims. I may have made a negative claim in my inquiry, but the positive claims are still on your end.

I did not claim that I've read all that there was to read. I claimed that I read material on the project and saw no such studies. If there are studies which exist, and they exist "somewhere," the burden is on YOU to find it.

Similarly, if you tell me that ghosts exists, but I simply haven't looked hard enough to find them, the burden is not on me to prove that "ghosts do not exist". The burden is on YOU to prove that they do exist.

[Tom Bishop]

You looked on Wikipedia.  It is a poor resource if you are looking for in-depth analysis, or completeness of information.  I am pretty sure you know this too, that is the worst part.

That is similar to saying that there is a ghost in my house, but because I haven't looked at every square inch with a microscope, that I just have yet to find it.

Positive claims require positive evidence.

[Rama Set]

You looked on Wikipedia.  It is a poor resource if you are looking for in-depth analysis, or completeness of information.  I am pretty sure you know this too, that is the worst part.

That is similar to saying that there is a ghost in my house, but because I haven't looked at every square inch with a microscope, that I just have yet to find it.

Positive claims require positive evidence.

I am not sure what you are even referring to.  All I know is that you claimed something did not exist based on it not being mentioned on a Wikipedia page.  If you like I can demonstrate how absurd that line of thinking is, but again, I am pretty sure you are aware.  You let me know.

[markjo]

Again, how do you know that no controls were used?

Because none were claimed.

How do you know this?  Did you examine all of NASA's claims?

I examined the claims I could find. If there are claims which I have not found, perhaps you should see to it that they find me.

I'm not asserting anything, you are.  I'm just asking if you have examined the schematics of the probe to determine how susceptible it may have been to magnetic fields.

I looked at the sources and could not find any such schematic. If such a schematic exists, which describes a craft as you describe it, with the things you claim of it, then post it here. Otherwise we must conclude that there is no schematic which describes a craft with the things you claim of it.

Is there supposed to be a link there?  If so, then I'm not seeing it.

I posted evidence of its nonexistence.

Oh, so you're just making all of this up?  Good to know.

If there is no evidence that something exist, that is evidence that it does not exist.

Argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy.  All you have proven is that you haven't looked in the right places.  Have you tried contacting the designers, manufacturers or operators of the gravity probe in question?

The gnome experiment is not a controlled trial. It is not being conducted in a lab, but being sent from person to person via post mail.

Actually Tom, it is a controlled experiment.  The gnome is the control.  It's a known mass that is being weighed with the same equipment under different conditions.  How does this not qualify as controlled experiment?

The environment was not controlled.

Tom, the environment is what is being tested.  This just goes to show that you don't understand how a controlled experiment works.

[Scientific Method]

Tom, on the gnome experiment, why don't you test your theories as to possible causes of error? Get a garden gnome, and a sensitive set of scales, a powerful electromagnet (one can be made for next to nothing) and a means to create a powerful static charge (you could borrow a Van de Graaff generator, or build your own, again for next to nothing). Then you could run your own experiments to see if magnetic or electrostatic fields have any effect on the weight of the gnome, or the reading of the scales. Throw in a barometer and thermometer, and you can also see how much difference atmospheric density makes to the weight. This, I would think, would be a natural course of action for a zetetic: to proceed by inquiry. You are a zetetic, right Tom?

Oh, and as far as space flight, how do you explain the silent, fast-moving dots of light that I can observe in the night sky when I look out my window (or better yet, go outside and watch at the predicted time)?

[Tom Bishop]

I am not sure what you are even referring to.  All I know is that you claimed something did not exist based on it not being mentioned on a Wikipedia page.  If you like I can demonstrate how absurd that line of thinking is, but again, I am pretty sure you are aware.  You let me know.

From available evidence it does not exist. If the evidence you think exists, exists, then it is your burden to present it. If you believe that there are other sources, it is your burden to identify them and find the material. It is not my burden to find material which might exist somewhere in the world.

Argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy.  All you have proven is that you haven't looked in the right places.  Have you tried contacting the designers, manufacturers or operators of the gravity probe in question?

No, I have not contacted them. It is not my claim that this space craft and components within it was built to be impervious to magnetic fields. That's yours. You are making a claim and asking me to "prove me wrong". My argument is "prove yourself right".

Tom, the environment is what is being tested.  This just goes to show that you don't understand how a controlled experiment works.

controlled experiment
n.
An experiment that isolates the effect of one variable on a system by holding constant all variables but the one under observation.

[Tom Bishop]

Tom, on the gnome experiment, why don't you test your theories as to possible causes of error? Get a garden gnome, and a sensitive set of scales, a powerful electromagnet (one can be made for next to nothing) and a means to create a powerful static charge (you could borrow a Van de Graaff generator, or build your own, again for next to nothing). Then you could run your own experiments to see if magnetic or electrostatic fields have any effect on the weight of the gnome, or the reading of the scales. Throw in a barometer and thermometer, and you can also see how much difference atmospheric density makes to the weight. This, I would think, would be a natural course of action for a zetetic: to proceed by inquiry. You are a zetetic, right Tom?

If you want experiments done you're going to have to pay for it. I'm not a charity. The scale used in the gnome experiment is going for about $500 USD. Van de Graff generators are going for about $175. A garden gnome runs about $23.99.

You can paypal $700 plus shipping to tom.bishop.enterprises@gmail.com.

[Rama Set]

I am not sure what you are even referring to.  All I know is that you claimed something did not exist based on it not being mentioned on a Wikipedia page.  If you like I can demonstrate how absurd that line of thinking is, but again, I am pretty sure you are aware.  You let me know.

From available evidence it does not exist. If the evidence you think exists, exists, then it is your burden to present it. If you believe that there are other sources, it is your burden to identify them and find the material. It is not my burden to find material which might exist somewhere in the world.

I made no claim, I am simply challenging the veracity of yours, so do not shift the burden of proof so quickly.  You did not even look at the references on the wikipedia page, so how can you say you exhausted all available evidence?  I am presented with two choices: the evidence does not exist or you are too lazy/scared/busy to look at other evidence.  It seems that the latter is likely true.

[markjo]

Argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy.  All you have proven is that you haven't looked in the right places.  Have you tried contacting the designers, manufacturers or operators of the gravity probe in question?

No, I have not contacted them. It is not my claim that this space craft and components within it was built to be impervious to magnetic fields. That's yours. You are making a claim and asking me to "prove me wrong". My argument is "prove yourself right".

Sorry Tom, but I made no such claim.  You are the one making claims about what NASA did and didn't say about their gravity probes.

Tom, the environment is what is being tested.  This just goes to show that you don't understand how a controlled experiment works.

controlled experiment
n.
An experiment that isolates the effect of one variable on a system by holding constant all variables but the one under observation.

Exactly.  The mass (gnome) and the scale are constant while the environment (earth's gravitational field) is the variable that is being tested (measured).  Tell me again how this is not a controlled experiment.

[Scientific Method]

Tom, on the gnome experiment, why don't you test your theories as to possible causes of error? Get a garden gnome, and a sensitive set of scales, a powerful electromagnet (one can be made for next to nothing) and a means to create a powerful static charge (you could borrow a Van de Graaff generator, or build your own, again for next to nothing). Then you could run your own experiments to see if magnetic or electrostatic fields have any effect on the weight of the gnome, or the reading of the scales. Throw in a barometer and thermometer, and you can also see how much difference atmospheric density makes to the weight. This, I would think, would be a natural course of action for a zetetic: to proceed by inquiry. You are a zetetic, right Tom?

If you want experiments done you're going to have to pay for it. I'm not a charity. The scale used in the gnome experiment is going for about $500 USD. Van de Graff generators are going for about $175. A garden gnome runs about $23.99.

You can paypal $700 plus shipping to tom.bishop.enterprises@gmail.com.

I wasn't asking you to do them for my sake, I was suggesting you do them for your own. However, if you have no desire to proceed by inquiry, then perhaps you should stop criticising those who are.

[markjo]

Tom, on the gnome experiment, why don't you test your theories as to possible causes of error? Get a garden gnome, and a sensitive set of scales, a powerful electromagnet (one can be made for next to nothing) and a means to create a powerful static charge (you could borrow a Van de Graaff generator, or build your own, again for next to nothing). Then you could run your own experiments to see if magnetic or electrostatic fields have any effect on the weight of the gnome, or the reading of the scales. Throw in a barometer and thermometer, and you can also see how much difference atmospheric density makes to the weight. This, I would think, would be a natural course of action for a zetetic: to proceed by inquiry. You are a zetetic, right Tom?

If you want experiments done you're going to have to pay for it. I'm not a charity. The scale used in the gnome experiment is going for about $500 USD. Van de Graff generators are going for about $175. A garden gnome runs about $23.99.

You can paypal $700 plus shipping to tom.bishop.enterprises@gmail.com.

I wasn't asking you to do them for my sake, I was suggesting you do them for your own. However, if you have no desire to proceed by inquiry, then perhaps you should stop criticising those who are.

If Tom has no desire to proceed by inquiry, then perhaps he should stop calling himself a zetetic.

[Tintagel]

Exactly.  The mass (gnome) and the scale are constant while the environment (earth's gravitational field) is the variable that is being tested (measured).  Tell me again how this is not a controlled experiment.

When I first heard about this experiment, my first thought is that there's absolutely no guarantee that the gnome won't be slightly damaged every time it's shipped, altering its mass over time, and similarly that the scale's sensitivity isn't somehow altered by the process.  They're trusting their controls to the hands of postal workers and random strangers.  That doesn't sound like much of a control to me.

[Tom Bishop]

I made no claim, I am simply challenging the veracity of yours, so do not shift the burden of proof so quickly.  You did not even look at the references on the wikipedia page, so how can you say you exhausted all available evidence?  I am presented with two choices: the evidence does not exist or you are too lazy/scared/busy to look at other evidence.  It seems that the latter is likely true.

If you are challenging the veracity of "it doesn't exist" then you are consequentially claiming that it does exist. You are making a positive claim which must come with positive evidence.

The notion of "it doesn't exist" does not need to be demonstrated. I can already see that it doesn't exist. I don't see the study you are claiming exists in the papers on my computer desk. I even went to Wikipedia and the project's website and saw no such thing. Is it my responsibility to search through endless websites, attempt interrogation of people who worked on the project, and fly out to the ESA's library archives in an endless quest of something which might or might not exist? Or is it the responsibility of the person claiming that such a study exists to present it?

It is not even my responsibility to look on Wikipedia, or anywhere at all, for such an alleged study. My responsibility extends to doing nothing. I simply opened my eyes and was presented with evidence that it does not exist. I have not made the positive claim. It is not my responsibility to demonstrate its existence.

[Tom Bishop]

Sorry Tom, but I made no such claim.  You are the one making claims about what NASA did and didn't say about their gravity probes.

If you have documents or a study to show, then show it. Otherwise it doesn't exist.

Tom, the environment is what is being tested.  This just goes to show that you don't understand how a controlled experiment works.

controlled experiment
n.
An experiment that isolates the effect of one variable on a system by holding constant all variables but the one under observation.

Exactly.  The mass (gnome) and the scale are constant while the environment (earth's gravitational field) is the variable that is being tested (measured).  Tell me again how this is not a controlled experiment.

The definition says that all variables must be held constant.

[bj1234]

I made no claim, I am simply challenging the veracity of yours, so do not shift the burden of proof so quickly.  You did not even look at the references on the wikipedia page, so how can you say you exhausted all available evidence?  I am presented with two choices: the evidence does not exist or you are too lazy/scared/busy to look at other evidence.  It seems that the latter is likely true.

If you are challenging the veracity of "it doesn't exist" then you are consequentially claiming that it does exist. You are making a positive claim which must come with positive evidence.

The notion of "it doesn't exist" does not need to be demonstrated. I can already see that it doesn't exist. I don't see the study you are claiming exists in the papers on my computer desk. I even went to Wikipedia and the project's website and saw no such thing. Is it my responsibility to search through endless websites, attempt interrogation of people who worked on the project, and fly out to the ESA's library archives in an endless quest of something which might or might not exist? Or is it the responsibility of the person claiming that such a study exists to present it?

It is not even my responsibility to look on Wikipedia, or anywhere at all, for such an alleged study. My responsibility extends to doing nothing. I simply opened my eyes and was presented with evidence that it does not exist. I have not made the positive claim. It is not my responsibility to demonstrate its existence.

Your argument is a prime example of an argument from ignorance.  You are essentially claiming "I have not seen evidence of its existence therefore it does not exist." 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance


Also, there is a HUGE difference between "It doesn't exist" and "I don't believe it exists"

[Tom Bishop]

Tom, on the gnome experiment, why don't you test your theories as to possible causes of error? Get a garden gnome, and a sensitive set of scales, a powerful electromagnet (one can be made for next to nothing) and a means to create a powerful static charge (you could borrow a Van de Graaff generator, or build your own, again for next to nothing). Then you could run your own experiments to see if magnetic or electrostatic fields have any effect on the weight of the gnome, or the reading of the scales. Throw in a barometer and thermometer, and you can also see how much difference atmospheric density makes to the weight. This, I would think, would be a natural course of action for a zetetic: to proceed by inquiry. You are a zetetic, right Tom?

If you want experiments done you're going to have to pay for it. I'm not a charity. The scale used in the gnome experiment is going for about $500 USD. Van de Graff generators are going for about $175. A garden gnome runs about $23.99.

You can paypal $700 plus shipping to tom.bishop.enterprises@gmail.com.

I wasn't asking you to do them for my sake, I was suggesting you do them for your own. However, if you have no desire to proceed by inquiry, then perhaps you should stop criticising those who are.

I have already seen for myself, in high school and college courses, that these gravity experiments are not reliable. The readings of these extremely sensitive scales and gravimeters change all throughout the day, due to whisps of moving air currents, and all kinds of things. Such experiments used to be common classroom practice. I have nothing to prove to myself, and no desire to perform experiments which do not further my own understanding.

If you would like experiments performed to satisfy your own understanding, you will need to pay for it.

[Tom Bishop]

Your argument is a prime example of an argument from ignorance.  You are essentially claiming "I have not seen evidence of its existence therefore it does not exist." 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance


Also, there is a HUGE difference between "It doesn't exist" and "I don't believe it exists"

How can something exist without evidence of existence?

[bj1234]

Your argument is a prime example of an argument from ignorance.  You are essentially claiming "I have not seen evidence of its existence therefore it does not exist." 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance


Also, there is a HUGE difference between "It doesn't exist" and "I don't believe it exists"

How can something exist without evidence of existence?

But how do you KNOW it doesn't exist without looking in ALL likely places?

The only truth that we can gather from the Wiki is that we cannot know if the experiment was controlled or not.  Stating anything otherwise requires the claimant to provide some sort of evidence or a logical argument. 

That is all everyone is asking from you.
Supply the documents that you looked through, then make a logical argument to support your claim.
Something you have not done.

[Tom Bishop]

But how do you KNOW it doesn't exist without looking in ALL likely places?

The only truth that we can gather from the Wiki is that we cannot know if the experiment was controlled or not.  Stating anything otherwise requires the claimant to provide some sort of evidence or a logical argument. 

That is all everyone is asking from you.
Supply the documents that you looked through, then make a logical argument to support your claim.
Something you have not done.

It's not my responsibility to look anywhere at all for these documents. It is not my responsibility to even make an attempt of looking for them. It's not my claim. I do not need to "look" for things which someone claims may exist "somewhere" in the world.

I KNOW that these documents do not exist because I opened my eyes, looked around my room, and did not see them.

I KNOW that these documents do not exist because I woke up this morning and did not find them sitting on my doorstep.

I KNOW that these documents do not exist because I opened my briefcase and they were not there.

I KNOW that these documents do not exist because I did absolutely nothing in effort to find these documents and they did not present themselves to me.

When we speak of "for a fact" and "I know" and other declarative statements we are speaking from our own knowledge. We cannot speak for the knowledge of others. I can safely say, that I know, and for a matter of fact, that these documents absolutely do not exist. They will continue not existing until evidence is presented that they do exist.

It is not my responsibility to look for things someone says may exist out in the world. It is not my responsibility to attempt such a search. My responsibility extends to doing nothing, because I already know that it does not exist.

[bj1234]

But how do you KNOW it doesn't exist without looking in ALL likely places?

The only truth that we can gather from the Wiki is that we cannot know if the experiment was controlled or not.  Stating anything otherwise requires the claimant to provide some sort of evidence or a logical argument. 

That is all everyone is asking from you.
Supply the documents that you looked through, then make a logical argument to support your claim.
Something you have not done.

It's not my responsibility to look anywhere at all for these documents. It is not my responsibility to even make an attempt of looking for them. It's not my claim. I do not need to "look" for things which someone claims may exist "somewhere" in the world.

I KNOW that these documents do not exist because I opened my eyes, looked around my room, and did not see them.

I KNOW that these documents do not exist because I woke up this morning and did not find them sitting on my doorstep.

I KNOW that these documents do not exist because I opened my briefcase and they were not there.

I KNOW that these documents do not exist because I did absolutely nothing in effort to find these documents and they did not present themselves to me.

When we speak of "for a fact" and "I know" and other declarative statements we are speaking from our own knowledge. We cannot speak for the knowledge of others. I can safely say, that I know, and for a matter of fact, that these documents absolutely do not exist. They will continue not existing until evidence is presented that they do exist.

It is not my responsibility to look for things someone says may exist out in the world. It is not my responsibility to attempt such a search. My responsibility extends to doing nothing, because I already know for a fact that it does not exist.

But see it WAS your claim that it was not a controlled experiment.  YOU bear the burden of proof.  The answers are not likely to be in your room therefore you CANNOT say for a fact that it was not a controlled experiment.

Next time maybe you shouldn't make such a claim?  Just ask how the experiment was controlled maybe?  You won't sound so ignorant.