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 ... 447 448 [449] 450 451 ... 456  Next >
8961
It has come to my attention that any non-council member can vote in these polls, making the poll invalid. We will have to manually post our vote.

8962
A downside for 'broad proposals' may be that members will have less individual control. An upside to 'broad proposals' is the forum wouldn't be spammed with polls, and the polls will all be Pass/No Pass, rather than one poll of 10 options, which does not lend itself well to 5 voting participants.

Under 'broad proposals', the voting procedure would be more like how Congress and Parliament operates. They don't vote on every single detail of every bill. If a member has issues with 'Thork's Voting Standards' they would vote no and either submit a proposal of their own for a vote or give their criticism to Thork for revision.

8963
Flat Earth Projects / Should we vote on fine details or broad proposals?
« on: January 08, 2014, 04:02:40 PM »
Would we rather vote on the fine details of a subject, or a broad proposal drafted by members?

For example, when making standards for voting, we would either create individual polls for deciding conditions when a vote is passed, what should happen before a pole is created, contingencies for an absent voter, whether users should be allowed to change their vote, what happens when there are conflicts with previous polls, etc; or we could vote on "Thork's Voting Standards", which outlines a suggestion for all of this in a single written proposal.

Absent a formal voting procedure, voting will conclude when all 5 participants have voted.

8964
Flat Earth Community / Re: The Zetetic Council
« on: January 07, 2014, 05:21:10 AM »
I approve of setting up the forum.

8965
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: January 05, 2014, 09:36:04 AM »
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?

8966
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: January 04, 2014, 04:44:41 AM »
If we are talking about a formal debate, and someone has said ghosts exist, and has provided some evidence, then once you claim "Ghosts do not exist" you must either provide contradicting evidence or debunk the positive sides evidence.

Correct. The conversation proceeds once evidence is presented.

Saying "I don't believe that" is also disagreeing with with the claimant. You are making an assertion that ghosts do not exist.
Not necessarily.  Saying "I don't believe that" is not the same as saying "you are wrong".  It's saying that the claimant hasn't provided sufficient evidence to change the person's mind. 

If I say "water is wet" and you respond with "I don't believe that" then your statement is asserting that water is not wet. How could it not?

8967
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: January 04, 2014, 04:33:11 AM »
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.
Then state it as abelief. I don't believe ghosts exist is much different that saying ghosts don't exist.

If someone shows you a picture of a ghost, that is their evidence.  You cannot then claim ghosts don't exist until you demonstrate that the picture is not genuine.  So please tell me you still don't understand the difference between a truth claim and a statement of belief.

Saying "I don't believe that" is also disagreeing with with the claimant. You are making an assertion that ghosts do not exist.

For example:

Person 1: The Ancient Egyptians have made successful limb transplants.
Person 2: I don't believe that. I don't agree that they would know how to do that.

Person 2 is asserting that the ancient Egyptians have not make successful limb transplants. In his disbelief, he is making the claim that it did not happen.

8968
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: January 04, 2014, 04:23:10 AM »
Bj, Rama, I have never seen evidence for ghosts, and the source claiming that they exist is unable to provide evidence of existence. 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.

8969
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: January 04, 2014, 04:13:55 AM »
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.

8970
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: January 04, 2014, 04:09:46 AM »
There were predictions made regarding magnitude of error sources and results were plotted against the actual sources of error. How does this not qualify as a control?

The variables involved were not controlled. Please look up how a controlled experiment is performed.

8971
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: January 04, 2014, 04:06:02 AM »
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.

8972
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: January 04, 2014, 03:58:06 AM »
You refute the evidence by claiming that the satellite did not take into account all the variables it needed to, it is YOUR claim.  You need to back up your claim that the evidence is not adequate.  You cannot simply say "Nope, that doesn't prove anything" and walk away.  You need to back it up.

There was no claim that it was a controlled trial. As it is described from the sources presented on this forum, there were no mention of controls. This is evidence that there were none.

Quote
Also, where is your evidence backing up your positive claim that only positive claims need to be backed up?  I have shown you that ALL claims need to be backed up.

So the person who disagrees with a lunatic claiming that ghosts exist needs to prove, beyond an absence of evidence, that ghosts do not exist?

No way. The person claiming that ghosts exist needs to PROVE THEY EXIST. The conversation stops there once he is unable to provide the evidence for his claim.

8973
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: January 04, 2014, 03:39:39 AM »
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 "-".

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.

It is possible that the window does not even exist, making the claims that the window is both 'not open' and 'not closed' simultaneously true.

It is also possible that the window is positively open or closed, but due lack of evidence of its positive state, and lack of evidence of its existence altogether, we are compelled to define it as it is, a NOT. Barring some sort of evidence otherwise, the window does not exist and it is neither open or closed. It is the burden of the person with the positive claim -- that the window exists, or that the window is open or closed -- to provide evidence for that claim.

We must believe in nothing because there is no evidence. Once there is evidence we can start believing in things.

8974
I don't see a Zetetic Council board in my list.

8975
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: January 02, 2014, 03:35:02 PM »
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.
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 are you talking about and how does it apply here?

In this situation I have NO evidence to look at. None has been provided by the person claiming that it exists. NONE. Plenty of opportunity has been given to provide it. NONE RECEIVED.

I am supposed to go talk to {mystery creator} at {mystery location}. I am supposed to go out on the internet and into the world searching for {mystery data} in {mystery location}. NO! It is the burden of the claimant to provide evidence for his positive claim!

8976
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: January 02, 2014, 03:28:10 PM »
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?

8977
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: January 02, 2014, 03:22:34 PM »
But you don't doubt, you deny (which is a negative claim).  There is a difference.

Incorrect. One who doubts is making an implicit disagreement with the claimant.

Quote
You are assuming that the satellite in question contains magnetic materials.  You have not demonstrated that it does.

I made no claim of the satellites composition. Please show me where I have. My only doubt was your claim that this satellite took magnetic fields and other factors into account. Unfortunately for you, you have been unable to provide studies or data showing that the trials accounted for any outside factors, showing your position to be untenable.

How can you know my claims without me claiming them? If I were to make a claim of the satellite's composition I would claim that it is composed of nothing, because it does not exist. A negative claim.

Quote
That was not a claim of the satellite being shielded.  It was a suggested that the satellite might be shielded if the designers felt that the earth's magnetic filed would be a concern.

If you are suggesting that assertion to me, then that is a claim, and you must show supporting evidence for that assertion.

8978
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: January 02, 2014, 03:08:53 PM »
Why would anyone continue on this absurd line of argument, that they can make a claim, but the burden of proof is on the people who disagree?

It was claimed that things exist, namely that the GOCE satellite was built to take magnetism and other factors into account, and evidence must be provided for that.

So where is it?

8979
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: January 02, 2014, 03:03:55 PM »
Again Tom, it has been quoted to you that making a negative claim shifts the burden of proof back to you. You have a burden to fulfill and saying that you could not find the evidence on your opponents side is a weak attempt to move the BOP back again.  Do you appreciate these rules of debate?

The burden of proof is on the claimant making the positive claim. It cannot be shifted back to the skeptic to disprove him. The person challenging the claimant is not under a burden of proof to "disprove him" because he made a "negative claim" in his challenge.

Your assertion that the skeptic bears the burden of proof is a joke. The claimant must PROVE HIS CLAIM.

So you do not agree with the validity of the sources cited that contradict your position?

Which sources?

There are plenty of people on the net arguing that the person with the negative claim incurs a burden of proof. This is false. The burden of proof is on the positive claimant. The burden of proof is not on the skeptic who doubts his claim, because he made a "negative claim" in his disagreement.

Anyone with an IQ above room temperature understands that if I walk up to someone and claim that I can fly up into the air without assistance, the burden of proof is on me, and not on the skeptic who disagrees with my claim.

8980
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: January 02, 2014, 02:53:41 PM »
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?
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.

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.

Quote
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...

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.

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 the positive claimant, regardless of any wikipedia author or spiritualist trying to weasel himself out of the burden of proof by allowing himself to claim that God/spirits exists without the necessary evidence.

Pages: < Back  1 ... 447 448 [449] 450 451 ... 456  Next >