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 - Tom Bishop

Pages: < Back  1 ... 483 484 [485] 486 487 ... 489  Next >
9681
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: December 30, 2013, 02:59:58 AM »
Why was this thread made? Who said it was impossible to prove a negative?

9682
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: December 28, 2013, 07:00:36 AM »
Basically what is bolded is exactly what you have done.

You claim that lack of evidence proves you right.  You then push the responsibility of looking for any sort of evidence to others even when you admit that you haven't looked in the most likely place that this evidence would exist if it does exist.

I am looking in the most likely place. I'm looking right here on this forum, awaiting claimants to provide the obligated evidence for their claims. It is not my responsibility to find the evidence. See the quote above.

9683
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: December 28, 2013, 06:39:57 AM »
It is not my responsibility to prove anything either way. The act of challenging the critic to "prove me wrong" is the fallacy.

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

Quote
The philosophical burden of proof or onus (probandi) is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.

...

Holder of the burden

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed". This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question.

See bolded.

9684
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: December 28, 2013, 06:17:15 AM »
Quote
Only if you have looked in the most likely places.  Otherwise, it is just an argument from ignorance.

There is no "argument from ignorance fallacy" if there is a lack of knowledge in the discussion, and we truly are arguing from ignorance.

9685
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: December 28, 2013, 01:13:20 AM »
Who said it was impossible to prove a negative?
Does this mean that you admit that you must now start supporting your negative claims?

Negative claims already have supporting evidence of absence by virtue of an absence of evidence.

9686
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: December 28, 2013, 12:22:50 AM »
Who said it was impossible to prove a negative?

9687
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« on: December 27, 2013, 10:14:52 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.

Already done. It was agreed that a gust of wind could move a dollar bill. Therefore, a gust of wind could affect this experiment.

9688
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« on: December 27, 2013, 10:09:23 PM »
Quote
.01g is one one-hundredth the weight of a dollar bill. Air currents are certainly strong enough to move a dollar bill, let alone something one one-hundredth the weight.
But is it enough to move a 300 gram gnome?

If a gust of wind puts 1g of pressure down on the gnome, then that gnome is 1g heavier.

If a gust of wind attacks the gnome from the side or from below, then that also affects the gnome's weight.

Quote
Quote
There is a complete lack of documentation?  You contacted Snolab to verify this? Why are you starting down your fallacious and odious one of thought again?

Where is this documentation?

I never said there was, but if there is, Snolab would be a good place to start looking.

Then start looking.
Tom, why is it his responsibility to do your research?  ???

It's his research. I did not bring up the possibility that controlled trials took place at this lab.

9689
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« on: December 27, 2013, 08:47:29 PM »
So when it is shipped to an underground laboratory I your default position is it was done improperly?

There is a complete lack of documentation. What variables did this laboratory control in the experiment? Were people in the room during the experiment?
Tom, I think that you are grossly overestimating the precision of the scale used in the gnome experiment.  The Kern model EWB readout only displays to .01g resolution.  Any concerns of air currents, atmospheric buoyancy or magnetic fields are likely to be far too subtle for the scale to register.  The biggest control concerns are probably just keeping the reference gnome clean and undamaged.

.01g is one one-hundredth the weight of a dollar bill. Air currents are certainly strong enough to move a dollar bill, let alone something one one-hundredth the weight.

There is a complete lack of documentation?  You contacted Snolab to verify this? Why are you starting down your fallacious and odious one of thought again?

Where is this documentation?

I never said there was, but if there is, Snolab would be a good place to start looking.

Then start looking.

9690
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« on: December 25, 2013, 05:34:24 AM »
There is a complete lack of documentation?  You contacted Snolab to verify this? Why are you starting down your fallacious and odious one of thought again?

Where is this documentation?

9691
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« on: December 24, 2013, 07:54:42 PM »
So when it is shipped to an underground laboratory I your default position is it was done improperly?

There is a complete lack of documentation. What variables did this laboratory control in the experiment? Were people in the room during the experiment?

9692
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« on: December 24, 2013, 07:27:37 PM »
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.

As has been shown in this thread, it has also been performed in controlled environments and regardless of the environment the results do not falsify the expected local variations in gravity.

The environments were not controlled. They don't even say if some of the experiments were performed outside or not. No attempt was made to control the numerous variables affecting the experiment.

You know this because of Wikipedia again?

It says right on their website that they ship the scale and gnome from person to person to perform the experiment at their leisure, and that if you want to perform the experiment in your own home town, all you need to do is 'apply here'.

9693
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« on: December 24, 2013, 07:10:02 PM »
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.

As has been shown in this thread, it has also been performed in controlled environments and regardless of the environment the results do not falsify the expected local variations in gravity.

The environments were not controlled. They don't even say if some of the experiments were performed outside or not. No attempt was made to control the numerous variables affecting the experiment.

9694
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« on: December 24, 2013, 07:07:55 PM »
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.

Are there a lot of wind and air currents in the rooms you frequent then?

You underestimate how sensitive the experiments to measure the slight variations of 'gravity' are.

http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200806/physicshistory.cfm

Quote
Since the gravitational force between the spheres is so weak, the tiniest air current could ruin the delicate experiment. Cavendish placed the apparatus in a closed room to keep out extraneous air currents. He used a telescope to observe the experiments through a window, and set up a pulley system that made it possible to move the weights from outside. The room was kept dark to avoid temperature differences in different parts of the room affecting the experiment.

Cavendish relentlessly tracked down potential sources of error. He rotated the spheres in case they had picked up some magnetization. He observed the attraction of the rods without the spheres on the ends. He tried different types of wire to support the apparatus.

9695
There's a lot that is compelling about geocentrism, I agree, but there's enough that I feel is more beautifully explained in a flat earth system that I ultimately keep going back to that.
Seriously?  Like what?  RE geocentrism (REG, for short) explains basic observations like sunrise/set, moonrise/set, solar and lunar eclipses, the seasons and even planetary motion far easier and more elegantly that FET ever could.  REG can even explain the sinking ship effect without resorting to unproven physics like bendy light.

Please, name one thing that FET explains better than REG.

FET explains the sinking ship with the proven physics of looking out your window. I don't see parallel lines extending infinitely into the vanishing point, never touching, as the theories of geometry suggest, and upon which physical theories are based. No one has seen that. What is seen is that things disappear at a vanishing point, and that two parallel lines will touch. The vanishing point can be seen in railroad perspective photos.

Furthermore, sinking ship effect has been reversed, by looking at the ship through a telescope, restoring the hull to view and proving that the ship was not really hiding behind a 'hill of water'. These observations are unexplained in RET.

It cannot be assumed that the imaginary world of geometry is valid if its predictions have not been observed in reality.

9696
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« on: December 24, 2013, 05:02:59 PM »
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.

9697
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« on: December 21, 2013, 08:47:54 PM »
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?

Quote
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.

9698
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« on: December 21, 2013, 08:42:18 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."

9699
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« on: December 21, 2013, 08:25:51 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.

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 mainly rests on the positive claim. Negative claims have already been demonstrated to be true by default.

9700
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« on: December 21, 2013, 07:55:36 PM »
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.

Pages: < Back  1 ... 483 484 [485] 486 487 ... 489  Next >