5501

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.

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.

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.

5502

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?

5503

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.

5504

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.

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.

5505

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

« on: January 02, 2014, 02:42:10 PM »

But you are not acting as a skeptic.  Skepticism is an agnostic position and makes no claims, positive or negative.

Incorrect. A skeptic is one who doubts. Please consult a dictionary.

You have not yet sufficiently supported your claim that the earth's magnetic field is a significant source of error for gravity probes.  As you say, put up or shut up.

I believe I've directed you to look at a compass to see that the magnetic field moves metal masses, which went unchallenged. It was further asserted that satellites and gravimeters are made out of metal components, which went unchallenged as well.

BTW, I don't think that anyone actually claimed that the probe was magnetically shielded.  As I recall, it was more of a "how do you know that it isn't magnetically shielded?" type question.

It was claimed that the craft may be shielded, that evidence of this may be contained in its schematic, and that its designers would have further evidence of this. It does not matter if the claim is expressed in the form of a question.

5506

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

« on: January 02, 2014, 02:38:24 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.

5507

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

« on: January 02, 2014, 07:09:10 AM »

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.

Why would you expect to find schematics to an unnamed gravity probe here?  I'd think that the people who built the probe would be a far more likely source for schematics.

I would think that the most likely source for schematics of a magnetically-resistant gravity space ship is with the person making the claim that it exists.

I don't see that anyone else is making such a claim. There is only one person making that claim here. Claiming that some unnamed third parties have evidence of the claim is yet another positive claim which needs to be demonstrated by the claimant. The burden is not on the skeptic to find the unnamed creator of a gravity mystery machine.

The burden is on the claimant. And he needs to put up or shut up.

5508

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

« on: January 02, 2014, 06:48:14 AM »

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?

5509

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

« on: January 02, 2014, 01:07:32 AM »

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...

Oh look, that sentence there means that you need to look where the evidence would be found if the entity existed. 

Well, by golly, you claiming it does not exist because it isn't in your room or on the forum it is a total crock.

So let me summarize it for you.

All claims, positive or negative, carry a burden of proof.  A negative claim can be supported by the absence of evidence if you have looked in the most likely place for that evidence.  Until then, you cannot claim anything to be true or false.

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.

If someone is claiming that ghosts exist, and I do not believe that, is the most likely place to find evidence of ghosts to rent out some old houses to stay the night 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?

5510

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

« on: December 31, 2013, 10:28:47 PM »

1)The craft was not built with components that are significantly affected by magnatism
2)The craft was built with components that are significantly affected by magnatism.

So now that your position is written as a positive claim, you must now back it up.

See how every claim can be written as a positive and as a negative?  A claim is a claim and every claim carries with it a burden of proof.  As it has been shown to you before.

Ah, but it can't be worded that way. I never made a positive claim for what the craft was made out of. I never gave a claim or opinion on whether the craft was made out of nuclear-plasma or super glue.

While it has been claimed that the craft was made out of magnetically-resistant materials, I have never made a positive claim for the composition of the craft, and therefore have no positive claim to prove.

5511

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

« on: December 31, 2013, 06:44:12 PM »

You claimed the experiment would be susceptible to magnetic interference. You have not proved this. Citing the strength of the Earth's magnetic field is only one portion of the system in question.

I also cited that gravimeters and satellites are made of metal components. This statement was apparently accepted and rebutted with a claim that some metal components exist which are non-ferrous, and that this craft may have been made with such magnetically-resistant materials.

Ignoring the fact that all materials are magnetic to some degree (ie. levitating frog), and there is no such thing as magnetic resistance, especially in the frictionless environment of space, there are two positions here:

1. The craft was built with magnetically-resistant materials
2. The craft was not built with magnetically-resistant materials

One is a positive claim, and the other is a negative claim.

5512

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

« on: December 31, 2013, 06:00:24 PM »

Where is the evidence that a schematic exists of a satellite impervious to magnetic influence, as originally claimed?

Where is the evidence that the gravimetric equipment in question is susceptible to magnetic influence as you originally claimed or that the magnetic influence would be a source of error that could not be accounted for?

The first claim was answered in the previous thread with evidence that the magnetic field is powerful enough to affect small metal components. When using a compass one sees that the magnetic field is powerful enough to move a metal component in the compass. With the knowledge that satellites and scientific tools such as gravimeters are made of small metal components, it follows that a satellite with a gravimeter on it would be susceptible to magnetic fields. It further follows that a small metal component in the weightlessness of space is more easily movable than a metal component in a 1g environment.

Not all metals are susceptible to magnetic fields.  Where is your evidence that susceptible metals were used in the probe?

That is for you to demonstrate.

There are two claims:

1. The builders built the components with materials resistant to magnetism
2. The builders did not build the components with materials resistant to magnetism

The first statement/position (yours) is a positive claim. The second statement/position (mine) is a negative claim.

How does someone build a satellite without schematics? 

The same way someone can put a 6 cylinder BMW engine in the chassis of a Honda Accord and go directly to testing, without the need to make a schematic for it.

It also does not necessitate that the schematic even has data on the composition of the materials in the craft. Schematics usually don't even have that kind of information in them.

5513

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

« on: December 31, 2013, 02:22:41 PM »

Tom, you cannot have it both ways: you yourself have said that you have not seen the schematics for the GOCE probe. As such, any claim you make about the building materials is obviously an assumption. Therefore we can reject your claim that magnetic fields are a source of error based on an invalid premise.

The claim that gravimeters and satellites contain small metal components is a positive claim, and would be my burden to demonstrate if called upon, perhaps with pictures of the interior of gravimeters and 'satellites'. There would be evidence that gravimeters and satellites contain metal components.

I made no claims about the schematic, that one exists, or that it would contain information on all building materials of all scientific components within the structure. The schematic is markjo's claim.

5514

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

« on: December 31, 2013, 02:09:06 PM »

Where is the evidence that a schematic exists of a satellite impervious to magnetic influence, as originally claimed?

Where is the evidence that the gravimetric equipment in question is susceptible to magnetic influence as you originally claimed or that the magnetic influence would be a source of error that could not be accounted for?

The first claim was answered in the previous thread with evidence that the magnetic field is powerful enough to affect small metal components. When using a compass one sees that the magnetic field is powerful enough to move a metal component in the compass. With the knowledge that satellites and scientific tools such as gravimeters are made of small metal components, it follows that a satellite with a gravimeter on it would be susceptible to magnetic fields. It further follows that a small metal component in the weightlessness of space is more easily movable than a metal component in a 1g environment.

There are a couple secondary claims in the above answer, namely that satellites and gravimeters contain small metal components, and that there would be less friction in a weightless environment, which I would be required to provide evidence for if called upon.

The second claim that "magnetic influence would be a source of error that could not be accounted for" is a negative claim which I do not have the burden of proof on.

Since you haven't been able to find any of the schematics for the satellite or the data analysis protocols, you have no way of knowing if any of the materials used would be influenced by the earth's magnetic field or that any magnetic influence could not be filtered out during data analysis, therefore you have not met the burden of your claim that the earth's magnetic field is a problem for such a mission.

It was never my claim that such schematics existed. That was your claim. It was your claim that schematics existed of a satellite with magnetically resistant features. It is your burden to provide evidence for that positive claim.

5515

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

« on: December 31, 2013, 07:54:39 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.

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

Ok just gonna throw this one out here too.

There is no massive governmental cover up.
Space flight is not faked.
The experiments in EnaG were not conclusive to a flat earth.
The earth is not flat.

All negative claims. All automatically true.  I checked my mail box today and evidence to the contrary was not found in there.

That is it.  Discussion over. Shut the site down.  Conclusive proof that this theory is not true.

Those statements would be the conclusion if no other evidence was provided by the claimants for those positive claims. However, there is evidence.

5516

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

« on: December 31, 2013, 12:39:04 AM »

Way to back pedal on your claim that negative claims are automatically true.  Because if that were the case, the evidence shows that the window is both not open and not closed.

Negative claims are automatically true. The lack of evidence factually shows that the window is both not open and not closed.

Both statements are true. Since there is a lack of evidence, the window is not anything.

5517

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

« on: December 31, 2013, 12:15:38 AM »

Let me show you how asinine your claim that negative claims are automatically true.

P1)The window is not open
P2)The window is not closed

Both claims must be true, according to you.  Both claims don't require any burden of proof, according to you.  I mean they are both negative claims.  Oh and we also don't know who made which claim first. 

Please tell me what is the state of the window Tom?

The burden of proof is with the person with the positive claim. Neither of those statements are positive claims, and so neither incurs a burden of proof.

The state of the window is that that there is no evidence that it is open and there is no evidence that it is closed. The skeptic has no burden to prove anything either way since he has not made a positive claim. The burden of proof lays with anyone claiming "the window is open".

5518

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

« on: December 30, 2013, 11:41:20 PM »

It is the claimant's burden to provide the evidence. It is the skeptic's burden to look at it.

If you don't like it, don't make the claim.

5519

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

« on: December 30, 2013, 11:37:12 PM »

I showed that you were ignorant of "all available evidence" contrary to your claim. What more need I do to show you were arguing from ignorance?

I looked at all available evidence in the discussion. Obviously I am not looking at all available evidence in the world. That's for the claimant to gather and present. It is not my responsibility to prove his claim for him.

5520

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

« on: December 30, 2013, 11:23:10 PM »

No you did not. You did not read anything other than a Wikipedia page. There were sources cited in that that linked you to sources about presentations of research findings, etc..  That was presented. You did not read them. Stop pretending you were diligent.

It is the claimant's burden to post the relevant material here for all to see. I am not obligated to go on a wild goose hunts in search of material, which may or may not exist, to support random claims posted on this forum.

I would suggest to stop trying to shift the burden and start posting evidence for your claims. It is the responsibility of the claimant to demonstrate their claim, and everyone knows it.