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.
The Zetetic council shouldn't be there to chew over every stupid little thing.
Personally, I think we should focus our initial efforts on spreading the message of FET.
We have a great forum, a wiki we can edit, a bunch of people who can help generate content. What we don't have are new users to the site. We need new users to replace those who move on, and also to grow the Society. Without new users, this site will die.
I think the initial work should be to discuss and implement ways to get this site known about and to entice people here. Be that media ideas, organising links with big sites (backlinks), viral videos or viral advertising (the legal kind of course) and basically getting this society moving.
I will be around more in the next few weeks, but if anyone has some great ideas in the mean time, float them, vote them and implement them.
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.
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.
Then state it as abelief. I don't believe ghosts exist is much different that saying ghosts don't exist.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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.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.
But you don't doubt, you deny (which is a negative claim). There is a difference.
You are assuming that the satellite in question contains magnetic materials. You have not demonstrated that it does.
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.