[Tom Bishop]

But see it WAS your claim that it was not a controlled experiment.

I see the word not in there. Therefore my claim was a negative claim. It is positive claims which carry the burden of proof.

Not that I had to, or even make an attempt of doing so, but I did provide evidence that the experiment was uncontrolled. I directed readers to look at the website and see that the gnome was being shipped from person to person outside of a laboratory environment.

[bj1234]

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

Please learn something about debate.  It does not matter if the claim is a positive claim or a negative claim.  The original claimant holds the burden.

[Tom Bishop]

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

Please learn something about debate.  It does not matter if the claim is a positive claim or a negative claim.  The original claimant holds the burden.

Consider this example:

Skeptic: "You know what, I've never seen a ghost. I think that ghosts don't exist."

Believer: "You just made a claim. Burden of proof. Prove that ghosts don't exist!!"

But see, the skeptic did meet the burden. He has never seen a ghost. By default ghosts do not exist until evidence has been presented of their existence. This is why the burden of proof is always on the person with the positive claim. There is already plenty of evidence that something does *not* exist.

[bj1234]

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

Please learn something about debate.  It does not matter if the claim is a positive claim or a negative claim.  The original claimant holds the burden.

Consider this example:

Skeptic: "You know what, I've never seen a ghost. I think that ghosts don't exist."

Believer: "You just made a claim. Burden of proof. Prove that ghosts don't exist!!"

But see, the skeptic did meet the burden. He has never seen a ghost. By default ghosts do not exist until evidence has been presented of their existence. This is why the burden of proof is always on the person with the positive claim. There is already plenty of evidence that something does *not* exist.

Saying I think ghosts don't exist is different than ghosts don't exist.

Saying I don't think ghosts exist can logically be explained.
Such as, the lights flickering was caused by a faulty electrical connection in the attic.
The chill that went down my spine was caused by a drafty window.
Etc.

If I claimed ghost absolutely do not exist, I better have some solid evidence to back that up.

Big difference in a belief and a truth claim.

[Tom Bishop]

There is no difference between a "belief claim" and a "truth claim". You can only speak from your own knowledge. You cannot speak from the knowledge of others, or from a source of ultimate knowledge.

If someone said "I believe that the Ancient Egyptians practiced surgery" and if they had said "the Ancient Egyptians practiced surgery," they are exactly the same. To the best of that person's knowledge, the Ancient Egyptians practiced surgery.

You cannot make a declarative statement and disassociate it from what you believe, or vice versa.

If someone says that "water is wet," then they believe, obviously, that water is wet. It makes no difference if they stick "I believe" in there. Whatever they say is their belief.

[garygreen]

Consider this example:

Skeptic: "You know what, I've never seen a ghost. I think that ghosts don't exist."

Believer: "You just made a claim. Burden of proof. Prove that ghosts don't exist!!"

But see, the skeptic did meet the burden. He has never seen a ghost. By default ghosts do not exist until evidence has been presented of their existence. This is why the burden of proof is always on the person with the positive claim. There is already plenty of evidence that something does *not* exist.

You're confusing two different claims.  And this whole 'negative/positive' thing is nonsense.  Those are asinine distinctions, and they're irrelevant to the 'burden of proof' as you see it.

The claim "I am skeptical that ghosts exist" isn't a truth claim (I guess it could be a truth claim about your thoughts, but that's obviously not what's at stake here).  It bears no burden of proof.  It's just an opinion or a state of mind.

The claim "Ghosts do not exist" is a truth claim and bears a burden of proof.  It doesn't matter that if contains a negation.  Check out the thread I started on this exact topic.  It's trivially easy to prove a negative.

1.  If ghosts exist, then irrefutable, reproducible evidence of ghosts exists.
2.  Irrefutable, reproducible evidence of ghosts does not exist.
3.  Therefore, Ghosts do not exist.

Regardless of its soundness, this proof is logically valid.  If you want to assume that any statement featuring a negation is automatically true until proven otherwise, that's your prerogative.  But you're going to run into some issues once you realize that every 'positive' claim can be reformulated into a 'negative' claim.

"It is not the case that ghosts do not exist" means the same thing as "Ghosts exist."  Do you have to automatically assume the former since it has a negation in it?  I mean, it has two of them.  I guess we should doubly assume it to be true, yes?

[Tom Bishop]

The claim "I am skeptical that ghosts exist" isn't a truth claim (I guess it could be a truth claim about your thoughts, but that's obviously not what's at stake here).  It bears no burden of proof.  It's just an opinion or a state of mind.

"I believe ghosts do not exist" and "Ghosts do not exist" are the same. The second sentence is also the person's belief. Anything we say is our belief. We do not need to put "I believe" before everything we say for it to be our belief.

"Ghosts do not exist" is an opinion or state of mind of whoever is saying it.

The claim "Ghosts do not exist" is a truth claim and bears a burden of proof.  It doesn't matter that if contains a negation.  Check out the thread I started on this exact topic.  It's trivially easy to prove a negative.

1.  If ghosts exist, then irrefutable, reproducible evidence of ghosts exists.
2.  Irrefutable, reproducible evidence of ghosts does not exist.
3.  Therefore, Ghosts do not exist.

That's exactly what I said in what you quoted of me. In my example the skeptic has already met the burden of proof because he has never seen a ghost. The evidence to prove a negative is in abundance. That's why the burden of proof mainly rests on the positive claim. Negative claims have already been demonstrated to be true by default.

[garygreen]

The claim "I am skeptical that ghosts exist" isn't a truth claim (I guess it could be a truth claim about your thoughts, but that's obviously not what's at stake here).  It bears no burden of proof.  It's just an opinion or a state of mind.

"I believe ghosts do not exist" and "Ghosts do not exist" are the same. The second sentence is also the person's belief. Anything we say is our belief. We do not need to put "I believe" before everything we say for it to be our belief.

"Ghosts do not exist" is an opinion or state of mind of whoever is saying it.

I don't really want to debate epistemology and metaphysics because that's boring, but I'm not sure I believe that you actually think that that's reasonable or that you can't tell the difference between asserting a truth and asserting a belief.

The claim "Ghosts do not exist" is a truth claim and bears a burden of proof.  It doesn't matter that if contains a negation.  Check out the thread I started on this exact topic.  It's trivially easy to prove a negative.

1.  If ghosts exist, then irrefutable, reproducible evidence of ghosts exists.
2.  Irrefutable, reproducible evidence of ghosts does not exist.
3.  Therefore, Ghosts do not exist.

That's exactly what I said in what you quoted of me. In my example the skeptic has already met the burden of proof because he has never seen a ghost. The evidence to prove a negative is in abundance. That's why the burden of proof is on the positive.

Actually, you said,

It's not my responsibility to look anywhere at all for zebras. 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 zebras do not exist because I opened my eyes, looked around my room, and did not see them.

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

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

I KNOW that zebras 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 zebras absolutely do not exist. They will continue not existing until evidence is presented that they do exist.

I changed it to say zebras to show you how absurd your logic is.  You're literally saying that anything you don't already know about doesn't exist, and that the properly skeptical thing to do is to avoid any further inquiry into the matter and consider the discussion over.  That's the opposite of skepticism.

[Tom Bishop]

"It is not the case that ghosts do not exist" means the same thing as "Ghosts exist."  Do you have to automatically assume the former since it has a negation in it?  I mean, it has two of them.  I guess we should doubly assume it to be true, yes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negative#Two_negatives_resolving_to_a_positive

"In Standard English, two negatives are understood to resolve to a positive."

[Tom Bishop]

I don't really want to debate epistemology and metaphysics because that's boring, but I'm not sure I believe that you actually think that that's reasonable or that you can't tell the difference between asserting a truth and asserting a belief.

How can you assert a truth without also asserting a belief?

I changed it to say zebras to show you how absurd your logic is.  You're literally saying that anything you don't already know about doesn't exist, and that the properly skeptical thing to do is to avoid any further inquiry into the matter and consider the discussion over.  That's the opposite of skepticism.

The logic is not absurd.

If I had never seen a Zebra, read about them, or seen a picture of one, I could say that "I KNOW" that Zebras do not exist. To my knowledge I would have no evidence of their existence.

It would not be unreasonable for me to demand evidence of these "Zebras," of which you claim exist. I do not need to go searching the world for evidence of Zebras. The burden is on you, the claimant, to provide evidence of these creatures. The burden is not on me to find them.

In such a situation I could easily prove that Zebras do not exist because we do not have evidence of one and no party has presented evidence of them, meeting my burden of proof. The ruling would default with me. In lack of evidence of these creatures the conclusion rests with the only evidence that we do have -- that Zebras do not exist.

[garygreen]

"It is not the case that ghosts do not exist" means the same thing as "Ghosts exist."  Do you have to automatically assume the former since it has a negation in it?  I mean, it has two of them.  I guess we should doubly assume it to be true, yes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negative#Two_negatives_resolving_to_a_positive

"In Standard English, two negatives are understood to resolve to a positive."

This is precisely the point I am making.  "Ghosts do not not exist" is the same as "Ghosts exist."  You're saying that any 'negative' claim bears no burden of proof and should be assumed to be true and that no further inquiry is required.  I'm saying that that is nonsense since it would require us to assume both that ghosts do exist and that ghosts do not exist.  We have to assume "Ghosts do not exist" and we have to assume "Ghosts do not not exist."  Both are negative claims.

I don't really want to debate epistemology and metaphysics because that's boring, but I'm not sure I believe that you actually think that that's reasonable or that you can't tell the difference between asserting a truth and asserting a belief.

How can you assert a truth without also asserting a belief?

"Zebras do not exist."  I don't believe that claim.  If I assert it in a debate, then it still bears a burden of proof.  Whether or not I believe it is irrelevant to the debate/discussion.  I know that you're able to see the difference between a claim about one's beliefs and a claim about other things.

If I had never seen a Zebra, read about them, or seen a picture of one, I could say that "I KNOW" that Zebras do not exist. To my knowledge I would have no evidence of their existence.

It would not be unreasonable for me to demand evidence of these "Zebras," of which you claim exist. I do not need to go searching the world for evidence of Zebras. The burden is on you, the claimant, to provide evidence of these creatures. The burden is not on me to find them.

In such a situation I could easily prove that Zebras do not exist because we do not have evidence of one and no party has presented evidence of them, meeting my burden of proof. The ruling would default with me. In lack of evidence of these creatures the conclusion rests with the only evidence that we do have -- that Zebras do not exist.

Sorry, I took 'I KNOW...' to mean 'I am CERTAIN...'  It sounds like you're just saying "I don't know things that I don't know," or, "I only know the things of which I am current aware."  And you're adding to that truism that it isn't your job to learn more things.  Kudos?  I don't see how this is anything like skepticism. 

Skepticism would lead you to think something like, "I do not believe that these studies have properly adhered to the scientific method; I will attempt to prove that it does.  If I cannot, then my belief will be validated.  I can then be reasonably sure, through valid and sound deductive reasoning, that these studies have not properly adhered to the scientific method."

[bj1234]

I don't really want to debate epistemology and metaphysics because that's boring, but I'm not sure I believe that you actually think that that's reasonable or that you can't tell the difference between asserting a truth and asserting a belief.

How can you assert a truth without also asserting a belief?

I changed it to say zebras to show you how absurd your logic is.  You're literally saying that anything you don't already know about doesn't exist, and that the properly skeptical thing to do is to avoid any further inquiry into the matter and consider the discussion over.  That's the opposite of skepticism.

The logic is not absurd.

If I had never seen a Zebra, read about them, or seen a picture of one, I could say that "I KNOW" that Zebras do not exist. To my knowledge I would have no evidence of their existence.

It would not be unreasonable for me to demand evidence of these "Zebras," of which you claim exist. I do not need to go searching the world for evidence of Zebras. The burden is on you, the claimant, to provide evidence of these creatures. The burden is not on me to find them.

In such a situation I could easily prove that Zebras do not exist because we do not have evidence of one and no party has presented evidence of them, meeting my burden of proof. The ruling would default with me. In lack of evidence of these creatures the conclusion rests with the only evidence that we do have -- that Zebras do not exist.

How about taking the most logical stance. Which would be stating "I am ignorant to the existence of Zebras, my room would not contain evidence of the existence of zebras, therefore I can not claim that they exist or they do not exist."

[Scientific Method]

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.

Laziness. What if they were under the cushion of your lounge chair? You would KNOW they don't exist, yet there they would be, existing quite happily under the cushion supporting your lazy, un-zetetic posterior. You'll never learn anything with that attitude Tom, no wonder you support FEH.

[markjo]

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, do you even understand how stupid that argument is?  I don't have the blueprints that were used to build my car, but that doesn't mean that they don'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.

Did you even read that definition?  It says all variables except for the one being under observation.

[bj1234]

How can you assert a truth without also asserting a belief?

Try reversing that statement.

Is it possible to assert a belief without asserting a truth?

Yes.  Because holding a belief does not necessarily mean that the belief is true.

[MonkeyButz]

Yes, the gnome experiment is not controlled to the level of a laboratory experiment, but that is not the point here.  The scale is tared, which compensates (to a degree significant with the magnitude of the experiment) for ALL of the variables that Tom is obsessed with.  The important point is that a pattern has emerged over the course of the experiment that correlates to what is predicted by calculations based on the Earth being a globe and gravity existing.

It's Occam's Razor.  Which hypothesis has the least assumptions?  That the correlation in the experiment to what is predicted by calculations based on the Earth's gravitational field is caused by the Earth's gravitational field or that the correlation is caused by fluctuations in magnetic fields and air pressures and so on?  Especially when the differences in magnetic fields and air pressure and so on between locations are nullified by pushing the Tare button on the scale.

[markjo]

Depending on the resolution and accuracy of the scale, I'd be more concerned with the gravitational influence of the sun and moon than with atmospheric buoyancy or magnetic fields.

[MonkeyButz]

Am I the only one here who knows what it means to tare a scale?  The only way that the gravitational pull of the Moon or the Sun would be relevant here is if they caused rapid fluctuations that happened in the time it takes for the scale to take a reading or in the time between when they tare the scale and when they put the gnome on the scale.  Here is the thing with an electronic scale, though:  It waits for the weight to stop fluctuating before giving a reading or giving an error.  So, if there were fluctuations in the gravitational fields or magnetic fields or air pressure or whatever that could actually influence the experiment at the resolution of the scale, it wouldn't be proving data in the first place.  You can try this if you have an electronic bathroom scale at home.  Try to get it to provide a reading while repeatedly and rapidly stepping on and off of the scale.  If it has any sophistication nearing the level of the scale in the experiment, it will give you an error.

[markjo]

Am I the only one here who knows what it means to tare a scale?  The only way that the gravitational pull of the Moon or the Sun would be relevant here is if they caused rapid fluctuations that happened in the time it takes for the scale to take a reading or in the time between when they tare the scale and when they put the gnome on the scale. 

Ummm...  No.  The gravitational influences of the sun and moon (tidal forces) can and do affect the actual value of g (the local gravitational field).  With a scale sensitive enough, you can actually measure the changes of g during the course of a day.  In fact, some scales are sensitive enough that snow accumulation on the roof can affect the reading.  I'm not saying that this scale is or isn't sensitive enough to pick up this effect, but it is a real phenomenon.

The tidal accelerations at the surfaces of planets in the Solar System are generally very small. For example, the lunar tidal acceleration at the Earth's surface along the Moon-Earth axis is about 1.1 × 10−7 g, while the solar tidal acceleration at the Earth's surface along the Sun-Earth axis is about 0.52 × 10−7 g, where g is the gravitational acceleration at the Earth's surface.

Here is the thing with an electronic scale, though:  It waits for the weight to stop fluctuating before giving a reading or giving an error.  So, if there were fluctuations in the gravitational fields or magnetic fields or air pressure or whatever that could actually influence the experiment at the resolution of the scale, it wouldn't be proving data in the first place.  You can try this if you have an electronic bathroom scale at home.  Try to get it to provide a reading while repeatedly and rapidly stepping on and off of the scale.  If it has any sophistication nearing the level of the scale in the experiment, it will give you an error.

The concern isn't about rapid fluctuations, it's about how the local environment can affect readings.  The magnetic field of the earth, atmospheric pressure and buoyancy, tidal forces from the sun and moon are not rapid fluctuations, but can all have some tiny effect on the weight of the reference mass.  The real question is which of those influences are significant enough to affect the actual reading?

[Tom Bishop]

Wind and air currents of a room are certainly potent enough to affect the reading. Seeing as this experiment was shipped from person to person and performed in various uncontrolled environments, the experiment is invalid.