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 - garygreen

Pages: < Back  1 ... 76 77 [78] 79 80  Next >
1541
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Show me proof of a flat earth.
« on: January 17, 2014, 04:17:22 PM »
JPEG compression ringing isn't in question here. What is questionable are the rectangular "auroras" around the earths, which are typically a sign of image editing.

Just once I'd love to see you actually provide a warrant for any of the claims you make.  Once.

Can you provide ANY SOURCE AT ALL that can confirm this statement?  Because it looks to me like you took a reduced version of a jpg of a scan of a photo taken in 1969 and found a bunch of artifacts.

Oh hey look at all the people posting fake photos of the Moon on Google images.  I can't believe that so many people would forge their own photos of the Moon in the sky.  It's unbelievable.  Don't worry about getting bogged down in what I did to these photos or if it's a legitimate way to spot a fake photo.  Just take my word for it.



1542
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Show me proof of a flat earth.
« on: January 16, 2014, 05:49:20 PM »
Oh hey look, blocking artifacts that can be reproduced in pretty much every digital image ever.  He doesn't specify what image he used.  He doesn't specify what he did to the image.  What a joke.  But it's in a Youtube video, so Tom believes it.

http://www.iti.gr/files/csvt_10-2002.pdf
Quote
THE BLOCK-based discrete cosine transform (B-DCT) scheme is a fundamental component of many image and video compression standards including JPEG, H.263, MPEG-1, MPEG-2, MPEG-4, and others, used in a wide range of applications. The B-DCT scheme takes
advantage of the local spatial correlation property of the images by dividing the image into 8 x 8 blocks of pixels, transforming each block from the spatial domain to the frequency domain using the discrete cosine transform (DCT) and quantizing the DCT coefficients. Since blocks of pixels are treated as single entities and coded separately, correlation among spatially adjacent blocks is not taken into account in coding, which results in block boundaries being visible when the decoded image is reconstructed.

I don't get any of the technical stuff, but I gather that JPEG images are composed of lots of blocks, and the edges of those blocks can be rendered visible.

You'd be amazed what you can learn with a modicum of skepticism and an genuine desire to learn new things.

e: Here is a demonstration of these artifacts that anyone can reproduce:

Step 1: Open MS Paint and open a new file.  It doesn't really matter about the dimensions.  To make this something like the Apollo images, fill the background with black and then use the circle tool to make a white circle in the middle of the image, like this:


Step 2: Save this file as a JPEG.

Step 3: Use the fill tool to fill in the black space with different colors and look at what happens.  You'll see something like this:

1543
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: January 14, 2014, 08:25:44 PM »
I see.

Person 1: Does the boogeyman exist?

Person 2: No...

Person 1: Ha! You just claimed that the boogeyman doesn't exist! Now you have to prove it!

You're simply choosing to use examples that are practically unverifiable (assuming that the whole universe counts as a possible domain for ghosts and boogeymen).  We can't scour the entire universe for ghosts and boogeymen.  Beyond the practical hurdles, the statement "The boogeyman does not exist" absolutely can be proven using deductive reasoning.  It's trivially easy.

When you were talking about windows it was much more obvious that the negative/positive distinction is a superfluous one that leads to absurdities.  You have yet to even define it or explain how to identify it.

1544
Science & Alternative Science / Re: My Simulation Hypothesis
« on: January 05, 2014, 10:13:31 PM »
Of course we live in a simulation.  At a fundamental level, that's exactly how your brain presents you with information from your sense organs.  None of the things you experience are reality itself; they're just your brain's interpretation of the signals it got from some nerves connected to some tiny machines.

The map is not the territory.

1545
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: January 05, 2014, 06:31:54 PM »
tom: would you briefly explain what, in your opinion, is the difference between a 'negative' and 'positive' claim? what does that distinction mean to you?

Negative claims are an absence, not a reworded positive claim. It is not "0". It is "-".

I can't make sense of this.  What is an absence?  What is a positive claim and how is it different?

Negative claims hold a special distinction. If I claim that the window is NOT open, it does not mean I am claiming that the window is closed. I am claiming that the window is NOT open.

You say that it holds a special distinction, but you're not saying what the distinction is.  How do I recognize a negative claim when I see one?  Is it that it has the word 'not' in it? 

What if I claim that the window is not not open?  Is that a negative claim?  What about 'it is not the case that the window is not open'?  Is that a negative claim?

Also, what exactly do you think the word 'closed' means?



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.  Every truth claim has a burden of proof.  It sounds like you're saying that "Ghosts do not exist," and "I personally have encountered no evidence of ghosts," are logically equivalent statements.  They are not.

1546
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: January 03, 2014, 11:20:50 PM »
tom: would you briefly explain what, in your opinion, is the difference between a 'negative' and 'positive' claim? what does that distinction mean to you?

1547
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: January 03, 2014, 01:04:32 AM »
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.

1548
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Erich von Daniken
« on: December 30, 2013, 03:41:40 AM »
There has been a great deal more archaeological research done since 1892.  Much of it has been experimental, reproducing ancient construction methods using only the tools and knowledge available to those cultures.  This is because most of those methods have been discovered at or near those sites.  The people who built Tiwanaku lefts lots and lots and lots of evidence of how they did it.  Like, for real a lot.

http://davidpratt.info/andes2.htm

http://www.michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/Who%20Taught%20the%20Inca%20Stonemasons%20Their%20Skills%20A%20Comparison%20of%20Tiahuanaco%20and%20Inca%20Cut-Stone%20Masonry.pdf

If you search a library or electronic journal index, you'll find more material on the subject than one person can reasonably handle.


1549
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: December 30, 2013, 03:31:11 AM »
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.

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.

It is positive claims which carry the burden of proof.

I have a feeling that if I searched .org I could find many examples of you stating explicitly that one cannot prove a negative, but maybe not.

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. 

1550
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Erich von Daniken
« on: December 30, 2013, 03:08:57 AM »
That is entirely possible. There may have been an advanced culture that existed at some ancient time. I used Atlantis as an example, simply because that's one that everyone has heard of. Obviously if they were in South America they wouldn't be Atlantians per se. But could there have been ancient cultures that existed at some point before our recorded cultures did? VERY possibly.

I'm talking about ancient people with ancient technology.  How do you know that a culture similar to the Incans could not have built Tiwanaku?

Here are some examples of humans recreating some possible methods these cultures could have used.

http://interactive.archaeology.org/tiwanaku/project/experiment.html




1551
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Erich von Daniken
« on: December 30, 2013, 01:08:56 AM »
How do you know that Puma Punku couldn't have been built by ancient humans?

1552
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: December 29, 2013, 08:10:07 PM »
That is accurate both for propositional logic and programming, but they still deal with positive claims in one way or another. You positively state something that is provable - ¬P falls into that category.

I agree in the sense that the validity of a proof relies on the relationship between true premises.  In that regard we're always talking about true assertions and not false ones.  But the premises may contain negations, and negations are logically equivalent to 'false' in propositional logic.

Maybe I'm still misunderstanding you, but I'm saying that 'Not P' and 'P is false' are logically equivalent.  One can assert that P is false by asserting 'Not P' with no problems.  It seems like you're saying that one cannot assert that something is false in propositional logic.

I think this 'negative/positive' label is what's causing the confusion.  I dunno what it means to positively or negatively state something, and I think that the distinction is entirely superfluous.  Assertions are assertions.  They may contain negations.

However, in non-mathematical arguments, it is fairly easy to prove ∃ (you show that something exists, bam, done), and essentially impossible to prove ¬∃, because you'd then have to somehow exhaust the domain of the debate (which is often impossible to even define, and even more often simply inaccessible to the parties discussing). It is exactly because of the vagueness and inaccessibility of the domain that this sort of logic falls short. Can you prove that there exist no handkerchiefs in my pockets? You can't, and it would be unfair for me to request that. You can't access my pockets, you don't even know if I'm wearing clothes right now, so you can't possibly exhaust the domain of "all the things in my pockets".

If the domain is truly inaccessible or inexhaustible, then I agree with you.  But that's a question of soundness, not validity.  I totally agree that there is much room for debate about the truth of the premises in any of these discussions.  But those debates can be resolved, and those domains can be restricted. 

That I personally cannot verify the contents of your pocket does not mean that it's impossible to prove that it contains no handkerchiefs. 

P1.  If PP's pocket contains a kerchief, then I will find a kerchief when I reach my hand into PP's pocket.
P2.  I find no kerchief when I reach my hand into PP's pocket.
C: PP's pocket does not contain a kerchief.

I agree that I cannot resolve the truth of the premises from my current location, and we could probably debate/modify them to make them more accurate/specific/whatever.  But the truth value of the conclusion is logically provable.

Yes, it sometimes is possible to prove a negative, usually by proving another claim that implies said negative (e.g. if I can prove that my name is Frank, that implies that my name is not John, or, in propositional logic, any invocation of modus tollens), but it is often impossible when no such implication can be made. As people have already pointed out in this thread, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so if I do not provide you with any information about the contents of my pockets, my handkerchief hypothesis is unfalsifiable. Of course, that causes problems of its own, but you certainly can't disprove it.

Same as above, basically.  It might be difficult or impossible to resolve the truth of a particular premise, but that doesn't make the conclusion unprovable.  It's often simply a matter of modifying a premise or formulating the proof in a different way.

1553
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: December 29, 2013, 05:41:08 PM »
Again, assertions deal with truths, not falsities.

I might be misunderstanding what you've been saying in this thread.  To the extent that, for instance, 'Not P' means 'P is false,' we can assert falsities.  This is true for many logical systems (but not all), and it's definitely true of propositional logic.  I dunno anything about programming languages, so I'm out of my depth there; but, I take you to be saying that one cannot assert 'Not P' (or something to that effect) as a premise in propositional logic. 

Is that an accurate interpretation?

1554
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Star Trek
« on: December 26, 2013, 12:44:15 AM »
If I had to pick, it would be a close tie between TOS and Voyager. But not by very much; I like them all. I'd say there's more variation within each series than between the series.

DS9 is good, but basically all of season 5 was a bore for me. It felt like they just wrote an entire season of filler. Aside from that, it's a great series.

Voyager was great.  I liked its series arc there more than any other series.  It gave them so many great avenues for writing new things and adding a lot to the cannon.  Voyager is terribly underrated.

I'd have to strongly disagree. My three favourite episodes are two from TOS (The Cage and Miri) and one from TNG (The Inner Light).

The main reason I wouldn't say I have episodes I especially favour after TNG is that they started to spread stories across multiple episodes, so it's harder to pick one.

The Inner Light is really great.  I haven't seen all of TOS, and most that I have I haven't seen since I was a child.

1555
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« on: December 25, 2013, 11:50:16 PM »
I love that Tom doesn't have to prove any of his 'positive' claims about errors.  This is precisely why the negative/positive distinction is not a logical tool, but is merely a cognitive dissonance in the minds of people who are unwilling under any circumstances to alter the beliefs they consider precious.

We can always reformulate the discussion in the opposite direction.  Tom, you are making a positive claim:  "X can/does cause an error in your measurement/experiment."

You have to prove that claim.  By your own logic, it's obviously impossible for anyone to prove that the experiment does NOT have a source of error.  That's a negative claim, and it can't be proven, remember?  We have to assume that it does not suffer from error until an error has been proven.

Prove away...

e: Oh, here's a technical document and specs for the Karn EWB 2.4 scale that took me all of 10 seconds to find on Google.  It's a good thing I don't share your view that it's always someone else's responsibility to teach me new things and not learn anything for myself.

http://www.inscale-scales.co.uk/pdf/eg-m.pdf

1556
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Star Trek
« on: December 23, 2013, 02:49:03 PM »
I liked Enterprise a lot in general, but I didn't like the Xindi plot arc at all.

TNG has the best three Star Trek episodes of the whole franchise: Best of Both Worlds I and II, and Q Who.

1557
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Star Trek
« on: December 23, 2013, 03:46:25 AM »
Which series was your favorite?  I grew up watching TNG, and it has a special place in my heart.  But watching it now, I realize that so many episodes are garbage.

I think DS9 has the best writing of the whole series, and it has the fewest shit episodes.

1558
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Official Sports Thread
« on: December 23, 2013, 03:44:20 AM »
well that was pretty devastating.

1559
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« on: December 21, 2013, 09:35:01 PM »
"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."

1560
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« on: December 21, 2013, 08:40:07 PM »
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.

Quote
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,

Quote
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.

Pages: < Back  1 ... 76 77 [78] 79 80  Next >