61

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« on: January 01, 2014, 03:39:09 PM »

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

62

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« on: December 31, 2013, 03:23:30 PM »

Thats a routine checkup though.

Thats something you choose to do and the doctor does it because he likes money.

It's simply not relevant.

Now if you were in a country where this wasn't the case and you walked into a doctors he'd ask you why you came in and if you had no reason he'd send you on your way.

If you change your first instance to "i walk into the doctors in between ROUTINE checkups"

then chances are he WILL do what you said and send you on your way as you have no symptoms and no complaints.

A routine checkup has things already planned into it, it's like the difference between taking a car into a garage for a service (where work will be done because you pay and only because you pay) or just because you want to go gown there and say, "the cars wrong". they'll ask you whats wrong and when you don't know they'll probably look at you funny and telly you to come back when you do UNLESS you wish to pay them for random parts to be fitted or for their time in which case they might decide they just like money again.
 

63

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« on: December 31, 2013, 02:00:19 PM »

Probably wouldn't if you didn't give him a reason (at least not in a place where his main goal wasn't milking the insurance).

If i went to a doctor and told him I was worried I had "cancer", he'd ask if I had any symptoms or problems and when I said no he'd probably not require a load of tests to prove I was completely healthy. He'd just tell me that in the absence of any evidence there was no reason to think I had cancer of the anything.

Good example of absence of evidence. That is exactly what a doctor would do.

Have you been to a doctor lately?  Yes, the doctor would discuss symptoms with you.  This is the first level of investigation.  The doctor would also discuss risk factors like family history and lifestyle, check your weight, temperature, pulse, blood pressure, respiration and probably order some routine blood work.  This is known as a routine physical.

Went back in July as it happens.

He asked me why I was there and after I'd provided him with evidence he ran some checks on that and gave me a prescription.

If I'd gone in and presented no symptoms he'd not have done that.

Your example was cancer. cancer. If you go in to a doctors and say you think you;ve got cancer he'll want you to provide some evidence of where or why you think that. He wont just run a raft of tests on you to explore all possible places you could have cancer because you're a hypochondriac.

This is entirely different from a routine medical where you are in specifically to have things checked up based on your medical insurance, that's got no bearing on the discussion. Although it is worth noting that a lot of what they do in these physicals is based on previous evidence provided that you are likely to be at rick of certain things, that's why they check them.

64

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« on: December 31, 2013, 12:03:22 PM »

The base truth is that you do not know for certain.

The available evidence says that there is no handkerchief, therefore that is what is concluded. The conclusion stays that way until positive evidence is presented of this handkerchief.

Tom, please define "available evidence".  For example, do you want your doctor to declare that you do not have cancer before or after he examines you?  After all, if he doesn't examine you, then he can't find any evidence of cancer.

Your doctor does assume that you don't have cancer before he examines you. The moment you come in you are considered at a healthy state, which is why you are not carted to the emergency room before observational and diagnostic evidence is collected.

Only until evidence is presented, can the doctor say that you have an ailment. Otherwise you do not.

Last I checked, a doctor doesn't assume anything until he checks you out, gets some diagnostic tests done, then compares the results to get a diagnosis of your health.  If the doctor assumed that you did not have cancer, he would not perform any sort of tests.

Probably wouldn't if you didn't give him a reason (at least not in a place where his main goal wasn't milking the insurance).

If i went to a doctor and told him I was worried I had "cancer", he'd ask if I had any symptoms or problems and when I said no he'd probably not require a load of tests to prove I was completely healthy. He'd just tell me that in the absence of any evidence there was no reason to think I had cancer of the anything.

I don't know about you, when I go for a check up, the Dr. checks my blood pressure, weight, heart, lungs, sends me for a blood test to check cholesterol and such.  A standard gamut of tests.  This is just a standard annual check up.  If something doesn't look or come back right, I would be sent for further exams to determine what is wrong.  The Dr doesn't assume anything about my health, and if he did, I would find a different Dr.

you're an American with expensive health insurance am I right?

That or you're in an at risk group for one or all of the above.

Without any symptoms they don't check for cancer right? That WAS your question.

next time you're there tell your doctor you think you may have cancer then admit the complete absence of symptoms when he asks and see if he sends you for all the tests for all the cancers or if he explains it's unlikely without any reason to think so.

65

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« on: December 31, 2013, 12:44:01 AM »

The base truth is that you do not know for certain.

The available evidence says that there is no handkerchief, therefore that is what is concluded. The conclusion stays that way until positive evidence is presented of this handkerchief.

Tom, please define "available evidence".  For example, do you want your doctor to declare that you do not have cancer before or after he examines you?  After all, if he doesn't examine you, then he can't find any evidence of cancer.

Your doctor does assume that you don't have cancer before he examines you. The moment you come in you are considered at a healthy state, which is why you are not carted to the emergency room before observational and diagnostic evidence is collected.

Only until evidence is presented, can the doctor say that you have an ailment. Otherwise you do not.

Last I checked, a doctor doesn't assume anything until he checks you out, gets some diagnostic tests done, then compares the results to get a diagnosis of your health.  If the doctor assumed that you did not have cancer, he would not perform any sort of tests.

Probably wouldn't if you didn't give him a reason (at least not in a place where his main goal wasn't milking the insurance).

If i went to a doctor and told him I was worried I had "cancer", he'd ask if I had any symptoms or problems and when I said no he'd probably not require a load of tests to prove I was completely healthy. He'd just tell me that in the absence of any evidence there was no reason to think I had cancer of the anything.

66

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« on: December 28, 2013, 05:07:07 PM »

No, you can't. To assert means to state positively. Asserting a negative claim is like spending a negative amount of money - a cool abstract concept, but it doesn't actually happen.

I got a mirror for free with some furniture I bought and it was chipped at the back so they gave me £40 off the mirror.

67

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« on: December 28, 2013, 03:15:23 PM »

Sounds like a criticism of the way he phrased his comment more than the actual thrust of it.

If he'd said there's not enough evidence to conclude that the gnome experiment is valid due to the  lack of information regarding any controls and possible extraneous factors would that have been better?

68

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: What Religion are you?

« on: December 28, 2013, 03:13:04 PM »

It seems to me to be historic fact that the nations (cities, really) that were displaced were asking for it due to abominable practices such as child human sacrifice & other delightful activities.

69

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« on: December 28, 2013, 01:14:24 PM »

What about the sentence before the bolded one?  It makes no distinction between positive and negative claims regarding the burden assumed by the one making the claim.

Actually, it does quite clearly say that the burden of proof is on the person asserting the claim.

so do we now move on to what constitutes a claim and is questioning or picking holes in a claim, itself a claim?

70

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: What Religion are you?

« on: December 28, 2013, 12:45:49 PM »

Much of this argument is  centered on how much credit a person gives Moses, & one other point I think is being overlooked, but can't be quantified. Was Moses a man of God, guided by God in what he  wrote & did? I believe he was. What he taught is in harmony w/ later Judaic thoughts on various subjects.

of course it is. He laid the foundation and the later thoughts build upon it. They'd have looked pretty stupid if they went against their own holy book.

71

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: What Religion are you?

« on: December 28, 2013, 07:58:19 AM »

assuming Torah to have been written by 1 person, it can't be part right & part wrong. Either Moses told the truth or he didn't.

Quite a lot of non fiction books written by one person have turned out to be part right and part wrong.

If he was writing to reveal the truth he could have made mistakes and if writing to lie he would add truth in so people would believe.

72

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Religion and for-profit business

« on: December 27, 2013, 03:37:16 PM »

Other sects of Christianity require a tithe be given,  they cleverly call it an offering though.  While it's "voluntary" the bible still tells its followers to give to the church, which basically means that if you don't donate then you are not following the bible.

Chapter and verse?

1 Corinthians 16:2, 2 Corinthians 9:7, Acts 2:44-47, Acts 4:34-35, Acts 5:1-11.  That last one is especially explicit.  God actually kills a couple for holding some money back.

Thanks.

It's been a couple of decades since i read the whole thing and I didn't fancy slogging through all that tripe again.

The story telling really goes downhill after the old testament.


EDIT: most of those are about sharing money in a community and giving to the poor not to the rich church, although I grant you Paul was a cunning bugger on that front, way to twist Jesus' supposed teachings.

73

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Religion and for-profit business

« on: December 27, 2013, 03:13:19 PM »

Other sects of Christianity require a tithe be given,  they cleverly call it an offering though.  While it's "voluntary" the bible still tells its followers to give to the church, which basically means that if you don't donate then you are not following the bible.

Chapter and verse?

74

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Religion and for-profit business

« on: December 27, 2013, 02:13:26 PM »

The Christian God requires a fee, in the form of a tithe, in order to be in his good grace.  Requiring money is not the marker of a cult.  Scientology is founded on faith and faith alone, much like a religion.

I think you mean catholic.

And it's entirely voluntary these days.

75

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Battlestar Galactica 1978-1980

« on: December 27, 2013, 10:02:25 AM »

You're just more cynical Jroa.

76

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: What Religion are you?

« on: December 27, 2013, 07:51:33 AM »

If the definition of a day is how long it takes Earth to revolve on her axis such that all sides of her receive light from the Sun than day's length is determined by how long that takes. Before the sun existed, some other motive force must have been in play, rendering the definition, & likely the time scale, different.

well given that god created night and day before the sun it makes sense that the Jews believe that the two were interlinked but not related and that the day prior to the sun was the same length.

77

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: What Religion are you?

« on: December 26, 2013, 12:33:17 PM »

My People are Chosen of God for a special purpose. I have no doubt of this.

Soap?

78

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration

« on: December 24, 2013, 05:31:09 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?

79

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Proofs from EJ.

« on: December 24, 2013, 02:30:34 PM »

I think therefor I am.  I am not your imagination, Tausami.  Now prove that you are not mine.

But are you what you think you are?

80

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Daily Contact Prayers in the 3 Major Faiths

« on: December 24, 2013, 02:29:34 PM »

I think maybe you should all get together and give god a day off once in a while.

I also think too many people use prayers as a request not a thankyou.


Lastly I think the reason being is that the inventors of these religions were clever enough to know that a big bad ass god is only a good control of people if its in the front of people's minds and this is a good way to keep it there.