[Rama Set]

Seriously?  You are basing your claim that there is no corroboration on a Wikipedia entry?  That is a terrible source if you are expecting completeness.

If it exists, then find it for us. I've already provided evidence that it does not exist.

What?  No you haven't. You linked to a Wikipedia page, and pretended that was an exhaustive source.

[Tom Bishop]

Seriously?  You are basing your claim that there is no corroboration on a Wikipedia entry?  That is a terrible source if you are expecting completeness.

If it exists, then find it for us. I've already provided evidence that it does not exist.

What?  No you haven't. You linked to a Wikipedia page, and pretended that was an exhaustive source.

Here, I'll post evidence of its nonexistence again:

[Rama Set]

So you are saying that if it is not on wikipedia it does not exist?

Also: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  I know you know that, it's too bad you are being so dishonest.

Out of curiosity, why did you remove the link to the wikipedia page you cited?  Here is the page again for anyone who is curious:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Field_and_Steady-State_Ocean_Circulation_Explorer

[Tom Bishop]

So you are saying that if it is not on wikipedia it does not exist?

Burden of proof is on the claimant.

Also: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Says who? People who believe in spirituality, ghosts, and ESP?

[markjo]

Oh?  What's the control in that experiment?

None. It's an uncontrolled experiment.

So now you're saying that not all experiments need controls?  Make up your mind, will you?

It needs controls if you plan to pass it off as a valid scientific experiment.

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

2. Everything is magnetic to some degree. Especially the metal components gravimeters.

What makes you think that magnetic fields, plus any number of other potential sources of error, haven't been taken into consideration?

Because no such claims have been made in the reading material.

Did the reading material have a detailed schematic of the probe?

So you're saying that gravitational measurements of various parts of the earth have never been performed before those satellite surveys?  How do you know that earth based gravimeters weren't used to verify satellite based measurements?  What makes you think that magnetic fields would have any effect on the gravity measurements?

1. I know that earth based gravimeters have not been used to verify satellite based measurements because no such trials have been associated with the data.

Would you care to cite this data that you are referring to?

Sure, here is the evidence that no such trials have been associated with the measurements:

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

[markjo]

Also: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Says who? People who believe in spirituality, ghosts, and ESP?

Says people who recognize an argument from ignorance fallacy when they see one.

[Rama Set]

So you are saying that if it is not on wikipedia it does not exist?

Burden of proof is on the claimant.

You are the one who claims that GOCE never corroborated their data with any ground-based source.  Now you can either show that explicitly to be true, or you can maintain your current position, which is that you did not find it on the wikipedia page.  Either is fine, except the latter position is fallacious.

A third option is to make an inductive argument, but you are a long way from that as well.

[Tom Bishop]

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

Because none were claimed.

Did the reading material have a detailed schematic of the probe?

If you assert that magnetic fields have been taken into consideration, then you should post your findings here for all to see.

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

I posted evidence of its nonexistence.

[Tom Bishop]

So you are saying that if it is not on wikipedia it does not exist?

Burden of proof is on the claimant.

You are the one who claims that GOCE never corroborated their data with any ground-based source.  Now you can either show that explicitly to be true, or you can maintain your current position, which is that you did not find it on the wikipedia page.  Either is fine, except the latter position is fallacious.

A third option is to make an inductive argument, but you are a long way from that as well.

An expression of skepticism is a negative claim, not a positive claim. The burden of proof is on those with the positive claims.

"There is no evidence of ghosts" is an expression of skepticism, and is a negative claim. The burden of proof, consequentially, is on the people claiming the existence of ghosts.

[bj1234]

So you are saying that if it is not on wikipedia it does not exist?

Burden of proof is on the claimant.

You are the one who claims that GOCE never corroborated their data with any ground-based source.  Now you can either show that explicitly to be true, or you can maintain your current position, which is that you did not find it on the wikipedia page.  Either is fine, except the latter position is fallacious.

A third option is to make an inductive argument, but you are a long way from that as well.

An expression of skepticism is not a positive claim.

No an expression of skepticism is not.  However, you do claim to know something here

I know that earth based gravimeters have not been used to verify satellite based measurements because no such trials have been associated with the data.

Which when asked to supply your source of this claim, you failed to do so.  Instead you then shifted, and essentially, said "prove me wrong".  Sorry, you need to prove yourself right.

[Tom Bishop]

So you are saying that if it is not on wikipedia it does not exist?

Burden of proof is on the claimant.

You are the one who claims that GOCE never corroborated their data with any ground-based source.  Now you can either show that explicitly to be true, or you can maintain your current position, which is that you did not find it on the wikipedia page.  Either is fine, except the latter position is fallacious.

A third option is to make an inductive argument, but you are a long way from that as well.

An expression of skepticism is not a positive claim.

No an expression of skepticism is not.  However, you do claim to know something here

I know that earth based gravimeters have not been used to verify satellite based measurements because no such trials have been associated with the data.

Which when asked to supply your source of this claim, you failed to do so.  Instead you then shifted, and essentially, said "prove me wrong".  Sorry, you need to prove yourself right.

I looked at the material and saw no such associated trials. Therefore the trials do not exist until they have been found to exist.

Similarly, I looked in my closet and saw that no ghosts exist in there. The conclusion, necessarily, is that no ghosts exist in my closet.

Claiming that 'it does not exist' is a negative claim, and does not need to be proven. It is that which must be assumed before all else.

[Tom Bishop]

Consider the statement: "The ancient Egyptians did not watch Seinfeld"

This is a negative claim. Is the burden of proof on the person claiming that the ancient Egyptions did not watch Seinfeld, or is the burden of proof on those claiming that they did watch Seinfeld?

[garygreen]

For a riveting discussion on my important and groundbreaking opinions on proving negatives, see this thread: http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=979.0

[spank86]

I don't mean to derail the topic, but the notion that negative claims bear no burden of proof (or that they cannot be proven at all) is absurd.

Consider the following statement: Barack Obama does not exist.  The statement is not relieved of a burden of proof simply because it contains a negation.  Anyone making this claim would be required to offer evidence supporting the truth of its claim.  This is because all truth claims, negative or positive, carry a burden of proof.

Negative claims can also be proven.  Consider the following argument:

1.  If A, then B.
2.  Not B.
3.  Therefore: Not A.

This is logically sound and valid deductive reasoning, and both the conclusion and one of its arguments are negative claims/statements.

If this is too much of a derailment, someone tell me and I'll start a new thread or something.

I have a question.

How would one go about proving that barack obama does not exist?

I mean I could easily prove he wasn't the president if he in fact wasn't since there's only one president to check, but how would I prove his non existence? Would you have me round up every human on the planet and check their names?

[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?

Did the reading material have a detailed schematic of the probe?

If you assert that magnetic fields have been taken into consideration, then you should post your findings here for all to see.

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.

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.

[Rama Set]

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. 

[Scientific Method]

1.  If the experiment used proper procedures to eliminate sources of error, then those procedures will be mentioned in documents on that experiment.
2.  Those procedures were not mentioned in documents on that experiment.
3.  The experiment did not use proper procedures to eliminate sources of error.

Alternatively:
3. Proper procedures to eliminate sources of error were used, but not documented.

Just had to toss that in.

[markjo]

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?

[Tom Bishop]

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.

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.

[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.