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.
They say, while we do not know what causes the force of gravity, we can measure it.
If the government can trick the entire world into believing that the world is flatWhat? I thought the paranoid conspiracy theory was that they fooled us into thinking the Earth was round. So confused.
Freudian slip
There's been some stuff about 'positive claims' relating to who has to prove what around here, so I want to clear something up.rather, properly disprove that "conspiracy" or give up your claim to its fiction. demonstrate through some sources the doctoring of images or abandon this insanity. see how that works both ways? you're not right. at best, you are maintaining purgatory.Quote from: WikipediaA negative claim is a colloquialism for an affirmative claim that asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something. Saying "You cannot prove a negative" is a pseudologic because there are many proofs that substantiate negative claims in mathematics, science, and economics including Arrow's impossibility theorem. There can be multiple claims within a debate. Nevertheless, whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim.
There's also an old thread on this very topic.
Consider an alibi: It can be phrased as a positive claim, 'I was out of town,' or as a negative claim, 'I was not there.' These amount to the same thing, and are supported by the same evidence, e.g. a train ticket or other proof of travel.
So, 'space travel is real' and 'there is a conspiracy to fake space travel' are both positive claims. You can effectively rephrase both into negative claims, 'there is not a conspiracy to fake space travel' and 'there is no real space travel.' Which form they take does not change the substance of the argument.
Photographs taken from space are evidence that space travel is real, satisfying burden of proof for those who make the claim.
That photographs can be altered or faked entirely is not evidence that a specific photograph is altered or fake. Messing with a photo leaves traces that can be analyzed - it is not sufficient to state 'photos are unreliable' in response to a couple decades worth of photographs and videos.
Hence, those who claim that space travel is not real, i.e. that there is a conspiracy to fake space travel, must support their claim by satisfying the burden of proof. This has nothing to do with the semantics of positive vs negative claims.
Prove the space travel conspiracy, or give up.
nasa has and does publish things in peer reviewed journals. who made your microwave? is that technology still a nasa secret, or has it made it out to the general public?Expressing skepticism and questioning your fantastical claims of the existence of space ships is not creating a positive claim. It is questioning your positive claim. It is the party bringing those things as evidence to the discussion who must meet all challenges.If NASA claimed to have landed on the moon and had provided no evidence to that effect. Then yes, I would agree, the burden of proof would be on them. But once they provide large quantities of evidence and you claim that evidence to all be fake, then the burden of proving the fraud is on you.
You nailed the problem on the head - no evidence is valid unless it supports FET. Decades of peer-reviewed science isn't proof of a round Earth, but some random video on youtube confirms, without a doubt, FET. Convincing people like Tom is out of the question. You could put him on the ISS and he would still find a way to claim the Earth was flat.
Actually, that is incorrect, what NASA does is not "peer reviewed". That is one of the many criticisms against them. There is also much criticism of the evidence on the internet elsewhere.
The sticking point for me is that the legislators who created NASA were also caught conducting a secret war. Those same legislators also put Nazi war criminals in the NASA administration. Why should we trust a word from them?
And, yet, here you are you are telling me that I need to prove that those seditious politicians and Nazi monsters are dishonest... Very funny.