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.
No, He just claims it is not and walks away proclaiming he searched under his bed or some such statement.Yes. And they do this by showing reported evidence and explaining why this evidence is not genuine. It is that simple. They need to make atleast some effort more Than, well there is no evidence in my closet so therefore ghosts don't exist.Isn't that what Tom does? The usual RE'er response to that approach is "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
So, if someone introduces as a first claim, that there is no evidence that ghosts exist, it is their burden to prove that ghosts don't exist?Yes. And they do this by showing reported evidence and explaining why this evidence is not genuine. It is that simple. They need to make atleast some effort more Than, well there is no evidence in my closet so therefore ghosts don't exist. They need to do the leg work.
Then state it as abelief. I don't believe ghosts exist is much different that saying ghosts don't exist.No, saying I don't know keeps me from making a fool of myself when there is insufficient data to come to a logical conclusion.
Sure there is. I have never seen evidence for ghosts, and the source claiming that they exist is unable to provide evidence of existence, so this is evidence that they do not exist.
I am not burdened to prove that ghosts do not exist.
Please tell me that I need to prove that ghosts do not exist if I disagree with someone who claims that ghosts exist, so we can all see how stupid you sound.
If you are not looking at a window you have no evidence of it. The only honest claim you can make is "I do not know." Anything else is semantic play.
If there is no available evidence of the window, that is evidence that it does not exist. All truths are made from available evidence.
"I don't know" is not a claim at all. It is an avoidance of claim. It is a refusal to participate, and has no place in the weighing evidence and honest debate.
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.
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?
i have. anyone who claims that ghosts do not exist is making a logically provable claim that has a burden of proof.
1. if ghosts exist, reliable and reproducable evidence of ghosts exists.
2. r&r evidence of ghosts does not exist.
3. ghosts do not exist.
easy. maybe we will disagree about the truth of one of the premises, but it's still provable.
and in the absence of any evidence that's exactly what will happen in your example.
Symptoms are evidence.
That is exactly my point. The doctor makes no assumption about you health. He does not assume you have cancer. He also doesn't assume you DON’T have cancer. He make no assumptions about your health until more evidence is collected.So please tell me which scenario the doctor automatically assumes you have nothing wrong with you?
The original claim was cancer.
All through that example you have yourself providing evidence to the doctor that something is wrong with you.
No assumption needed, once you've provided evidence that something is wrong the doctor finds out WHAT.
Who walks into the doctor's and gets an appointment if it is not either a routine check up or a complaint of something specific? I think a routine check up is the minimum care you would expect.I know, but had to give an example based on their claim.
you did.
the original claim that if you go tell a doctor you've got cancer he will simply start treating you or running tests with no evidence presented.
He won't, He'll ask you to show some evidence and if you can't he'll suggest some possible evidence you might have noticed and if you still can't he'll ask you what makes you think you have cancer and if there's STILL no evidence being provided he'll send you on your way because he's not going to run a full set of tests just because you woke up and thought you had some nebulous cancer of the "I don't know what", with no symptoms
No, the original claim was that the doctor will automatically assume you don't have cancer.
I have shown that the doctor has no assumptions about your health when you walk in the door.
There are routine things that a happens at a doctors office before the doctor even sees you. They weigh you, the get your height, they get your blood pressure. All of these things are diagnostics to help determine if there is a significant variation to what is normal.
no.
These are things you pay for if you want a routine check up. My doctor doesn't weight me or check my height every time I go to see him. None of my doctors ever have except when I change surgery. It would be pointless, I know how tall I am and how much I weigh anyway, don't need to waste money having a doctor keep that info too. I'm not overly worried I'm in a Roald Dahl book and might get the dreaded shrinks.
He simply asks me what I'm there for and we proceed based off the evidence I provide.
If I have no evidence of a problem the doctor isn't going to go looking for it unless I press for it and provide some evidence.
Of course I suppose the doctor might weigh me if I was morbidly obese But then I guess I've already presented evidence by walking in the door.
Why isn't anyone 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?
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.
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 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.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?
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.Quotein 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.So basically, you make a positive claim that the burden of proof is always on the backs of the ones making the positive claim. Yet you don't back that claim up.
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 thepositiveclaimant, regardless ofany wikipedia author or spiritualistTom Bishop trying to weasel himself out of the burden of proof by allowing himself to claimthat God/spirits exists without the necessary evidence.that negative claims don't need to be supported.
Generally speaking, there are three primary types of persuasive claims:
Claims of fact assert that something is true or not true.
Claims of value assert that something is good or bad, more or less desirable.
Claims of policy assert that one course of action is superior to another.
In rational arguments, all three types of claims must be supported by facts.
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.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?
Quotein 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.
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.
Quotein 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?
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...
Who walks into the doctor's and gets an appointment if it is not either a routine check up or a complaint of something specific? I think a routine check up is the minimum care you would expect.I know, but had to give an example based on their claim.
you did.
the original claim that if you go tell a doctor you've got cancer he will simply start treating you or running tests with no evidence presented.
He won't, He'll ask you to show some evidence and if you can't he'll suggest some possible evidence you might have noticed and if you still can't he'll ask you what makes you think you have cancer and if there's STILL no evidence being provided he'll send you on your way because he's not going to run a full set of tests just because you woke up and thought you had some nebulous cancer of the "I don't know what", with no symptoms
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.
When the assertion to prove is a negative claim, the burden takes the form of a negative proof, proof of impossibility, or mere evidence of absence. If this negative assertion is in response to a claim made by another party in a debate, asserting the falsehood of the positive claim shifts the burden of proof from the party making the first claim to the one asserting its falsehood, as the agnostic position that "I don't believe that X is true" is different to the explicit denial "I believe that X is false"
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...