|
 Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
 Burden of Proof 
#1109083 - 12/04/02 02:28 AM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I hear the following alot:
Prove that ___ doesn't exist/ didn't happen.
I think it was Evolving that was forced to drive that point home a few months back, but the problem has resurfaced. It's an issue with the Burden of Proof... who gets it? I for one think that the burden should be on the claimant (god that's so assholish of me, isn't it?)... I mean, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE THAT SOMETHING DOESN'T EXIST (OR DIDN'T HAPPEN)- if there is no evidence, then there can be no REAL investigation. I don't know how to make it any clearer. It's simple reasoning... it really is. I can't see how this point could even be perceived as being unreasonable.
--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
 postanaldrip
human alien
Registered: 07/31/01
Posts: 676
Loc: Earth
Last seen: 14 years, 1 month
|
 Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Sclorch]
#1109101 - 12/04/02 02:42 AM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
"IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE THAT SOMETHING DOESN'T EXIST (OR DIDN'T HAPPEN)"
That is one of the reasons why I so firmly believe in aliens.
--------------------
"It's not until we've lost everything, that we're free to do anything." TDFC
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Sclorch]
#1109135 - 12/04/02 03:13 AM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Schlorchster, get it through your thick head: logic and emotionalism do not mix. Popping anyone's fantasy bubble will only garner you either endless double-speak or outright hatred.
Those uncomfortable with basic logic will just tell you that they have transcended that plane and are so far above you that you cannot possibly fathom their higher vibrations (or whatever).
It is like trying to tell a drunkard why you won't let him drive his car home. He just gets angry and considers you an enemy. There is no possibility of communication.
It has been a long and useless struggle to educate... 
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 11 days
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Swami]
#1109144 - 12/04/02 03:18 AM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Swami if you were a little more evenhanded then perhaps people would not get angry with you! For everything I have heard you denounce I have never heard you give hard proof that something does not exist. I realise this is a hard thing to do but surely you should leave the door open on all these phenomena untill you can prove that they dont exist?
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
Strumpling
Neuronaut
Registered: 10/11/02
Posts: 7,571
Loc: Hyperspace
Last seen: 12 years, 10 months
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Sclorch]
#1109168 - 12/04/02 03:51 AM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Exactly - The idea of the burden of proof is very basic.
Somebody says "There were elves in my room."
Somebody else says "Proove it."
Somebody #1 replies "Prove there weren't." <--- There! Right there "Somebody" #1 has now backed out on their claim completely, the way I see it. By shoving it back on the questioner they're doing nothing other than making it seem like they have no solid evidence whatsoever to back up their claim.
I hope somebody talks some sense into me if I push the burden of proof back to an inquirer regarding a claim *I* stated to begin with.
thanks for bringing this out  but of course if one's a big fan of Plato one can deny any claim ever made just by simply continuing to ask "how do you know for sure? how do you know you even exist?" and questions like that which can make the inquirer look just as bad as one who shoves the burden of proof back to an inquirer.
Gaz, the point is that if somebody makes a claim, but then has no proof, why would the skeptic need proof? There's nothing to counter..
-=- Matt/Strumpling -=-
Unfortunately, though, I'm with Swami - I don't know if this is going to help anything around here ;-)
--------------------
Insert an "I think" mentally in front of eveything I say that seems sketchy, because I certainly don't KNOW much. Also; feel free to yell at me.
In addition: SHPONGLE
Edited by Strumpling (12/04/02 04:03 AM)
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: GazzBut]
#1109174 - 12/04/02 03:58 AM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Swami if you were a little more evenhanded then perhaps people would not get angry with you!
1. Anger comes from within the poster not from me.
2. NO ONE here has given MORE opportunities to make good on their claims. I have posed numerous challenges and read every nonsensical website link provided to me.
How is that not even-handed?
For everything I have heard you denounce I have never heard you give hard proof that something does not exist. I realise this is a hard thing to do but surely you should leave the door open on all these phenomena untill you can prove that they dont exist?
It is hardly my fault that you are logically challenged. Please reread Schlorch's post.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Strumpling
Neuronaut
Registered: 10/11/02
Posts: 7,571
Loc: Hyperspace
Last seen: 12 years, 10 months
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Strumpling]
#1109180 - 12/04/02 04:06 AM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Elaboration:
Its like the judicial system - "Innocent until proven guilty."
Bob's bike is missing.
Bob goes to Ted.
"Ted, you stole my bike."
"Prove it, Bob."
"Prove you DIDN'T steal it, Ted!" <-- There... Ted doesn't have to prove that he didn't do it - Bob has to prove that Ted did it. Thats how it works.
--------------------
Insert an "I think" mentally in front of eveything I say that seems sketchy, because I certainly don't KNOW much. Also; feel free to yell at me.
In addition: SHPONGLE
Edited by Strumpling (12/04/02 04:06 AM)
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 11 days
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Swami]
#1109203 - 12/04/02 04:54 AM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
1. Anger comes from within the poster not from me.
Anger may not but arrogance certainlly does...
Quote:
It is hardly my fault that you are logically challenged. Please reread Schlorch's post.
sadly what your EGO takes such great pleasure in bandying about as logic seems to me nothing more that a set of prejudiced beliefs backed up with the claim that if certain experiments\claims have been proven to be false or erroneous then all claims of a similar nature are also false or erroneous. That is not logic, that is generalisation.
I agree with much that you say. Many people do jump to conclusions not supported by evidence sometimes they dont even need evidence to assert that their pet belief is in fact 100% true. This is sloppy thinking and just generates dogma and fixed mental posistions that are not open to change. I just feel you jump to the conclusion that many things are 100% false a little too easily, which logically speaking  is the same error the "Believers" are making.
As for burdens of proof, this is not a court of law, there is no claimant, no prosecutor - so i dont see the relevance. It just looks like the skeptics trying to make it easier to claim a victory on the behalf of their cherished beliefs.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: GazzBut]
#1109242 - 12/04/02 06:18 AM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
As for burdens of proof, this is not a court of law, there is no claimant, no prosecutor - so i dont see the relevance.
Ooooh... nice attempt at dodging the issue.
Sclorch, Swami, and Strumpling have explained the principle under discussion so clearly that no one with enough smarts to operate a computer could have missed the point, so why do you continue to pretend you don't understand? One might suspect you had an ulterior motive.
I say the reason you are taking this indefensible position is obvious -- you are being controlled by a microchip that feeds signals to your cerebral cortex. The chip was most likely implanted without your knowledge by an operative of a secret cabal of radical Leftists -- before the chip was implanted you were actually slightly to the right of Atilla the Hun.
You no longer have volitional control of your thoughts or actions -- all is determined by the signals sent to the chip. Because your posts are nothing more than echoes of your puppetmasters' agenda, I will refrain from attacking you personally -- you can't help what you do.
pinky
--------------------
Edited by pinksharkmark (12/04/02 06:31 AM)
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 11 days
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Phred]
#1109275 - 12/04/02 06:50 AM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Please reread what I have written without pre judging and then come back to me.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 11 days
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: GazzBut]
#1109280 - 12/04/02 06:52 AM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Is this the gist of what you are saying: The burden of proof lies with the claimant ergo if the claimant is unable to provide incontrevertible evidence the claim is therefore false?
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Sclorch]
#1109564 - 12/04/02 09:52 AM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I can't see how this point could even be perceived as being unreasonable.
The problem is it's completely unreasonable to request proof for a subjective human experience. Think about if for a while.
Can you "prove" you love someone? Can you "prove" you are depressed? Does this mean depression is not real and does not exist? Can you prove any subjective human experience? Of course not. This is the fundamental error that the swami brigade don't seem to get.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
Edited by Alex123 (12/04/02 09:57 AM)
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Phred]
#1109573 - 12/04/02 09:56 AM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
you are being controlled by a microchip
Well, it's a theory...but quickly destroyed by x-ray and a basic knowledge of human anatomy.
This clearly has nothing to do with "proving" what consciousness is.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
whiterasta
Day careobserver
Registered: 04/09/02
Posts: 1,780
Loc: Oregon
|
 Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Sclorch]
#1109630 - 12/04/02 10:32 AM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I wholy agree that proving a non-event exists is futile, yet while we are confined to experiencing reality sensualy or through instruments we interpret sensualy,proving any event actually occurs is also futile.Our senses can be and are altered by many stimuli and we have absolutly NO reason to believe that we experience reality in a congruous fashion to it's actuality.So while we may reach a consensus about events within reality we can in NO way prove that which we are experiencing is an acurate representation of reality or mearly convenient metaphors upon which we all agree.In fact I challenge anyone to PROVE that reality exists using non-sensual means  WR
--------------------
To old for this place
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Sclorch]
#1109788 - 12/04/02 11:56 AM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
George W. Bush wants Sadam Hussein to prove that he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction. How many people question this?
Sclorch, rationalizations are more important to most people than rational thinking.
--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: whiterasta]
#1109809 - 12/04/02 12:06 PM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I am not entirely sure what you mean by non-sensual means but one can easily use logic and philosophy to provide evidence that this reality is indeed real and not just a figment of one's imagination or the imagination of the collective mind.
You need to take a trip to the Radical Academy my friend.
If you find reality to much to deal with I understand but saying it doesn't exist isn't very helpful now is it?
Ahhh little weedhopper, remember, all is illusion. Ah yes, grok the oneness and feel the peace.
Excuse me while I wretch.
If you or anyone else wants to buy psychological contentment at the price of reason that's ok with me. Just don't expect us to go along on your trip. We have better things to do.
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
 Re: Burden of Proof [Re: whiterasta]
#1109825 - 12/04/02 12:19 PM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
whiterasta-
I agree with you in that it is impossible to perfectly measure (via sensory input) "reality". However, all we have is our sensory input... so unless you want to go on some hardcore skeptical journey that can only result in solipsism (which I think is counterproductive), stick with a more practical line of reasoning. Please.
The "reality" we're all arguing about is the consensus reality that can more or less be communicated. A bouncy ball can bounce. The sky is blue. The sun is hot. Sure, we can all doubt these things really "exist"... but that is not the point here.
What we're talking about here is this consensus subjective reality we all share. Basic coherence theory stuff-> which eventually translates to pragmatism. Aliens don't cohere well with MY reality... I ask for proof (to possibly enlighten me on a new aspect of reality that I am currently unaware of... allegedly) and all I get is a poor excuse or a dodge. The dodge that prompted this post was a particular type of pseudoreasoning called the Burden of Proof. This occurs when the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side of an issue or is placed too heavily on one side compared with the other. When someone claims that we should believe in such-and-such because nobody has proved that it isn't so, we have a subtype of burden of proof known as appeal to ignorance.
I hope I've been helpful.
--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
Strumpling
Neuronaut
Registered: 10/11/02
Posts: 7,571
Loc: Hyperspace
Last seen: 12 years, 10 months
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Evolving]
#1109864 - 12/04/02 12:30 PM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Well in the case of Iraq we have Bush making the claim - "You have weapons of mass destruction."
Saddam doesn't feel he has to prove that he DOESN'T, because its BUSH'S CLAIM.
Or if you want to reverse it, it gets into a situation where somebody maybe be lying so hopefully we don't run into issues like that here (maybe OTD ;-)), but I'll outline that as well:
Bush asks "DO you have weapons of mass destruction?"
Saddam replies "Hell no I don't." <- claim = "I do not have weapons of mass destruction."
Bush says "I think you're lying. Prove you don't have them then. Back up your claim."
-=- Matt/Strumpling -=-
?
--------------------
Insert an "I think" mentally in front of eveything I say that seems sketchy, because I certainly don't KNOW much. Also; feel free to yell at me.
In addition: SHPONGLE
|
whiterasta
Day careobserver
Registered: 04/09/02
Posts: 1,780
Loc: Oregon
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: ]
#1109938 - 12/04/02 12:54 PM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Between wretching perhaps you can explain how ANY data is not derived via the 5-6 physical senses or through the construct we call thought.Please Mr Mushrooms let's not be so arrogant to hold any representations of reality to be absolute.They are merely consistantly reproduced by senses and thought,not necessarily accurate representations of reality.For instance Earths gravity.Sensualy it seems as if the Earth "pulls" us down.We then create instruments which we use and our senses create the thought that gravity is a warp in space-time and we derive that the Earth is not "pulling"us ,we are accelerating down the space-time curve.Now without using any of these means Mr.Mushrooms describe gravity.You cannot.What I am saying is simple quantum physics.The Observer affects the Observed,Changing the reality of the Observed.Now if you wish to limit YOUR reality to a strictly Newtonian physics then you will miss most of the latest thought on "reality". 
As for logic and philosophy proving that reality exists separate from the observer,no doubt,as for them describing the absolute nature of that reality it is not posible without at some point relying on sensual data.Try describing reality without using terms involving your senses or thought processes.
BTW I find "reality" neither difficult to deal with nor do I deny I exist within it I just do not hold my interpretations of my subjective or "objective" surroundings to be absolute
And yes at times I have had the pleasure of "groking the oneness" and "feeling the peace" and other times I've copped shitty 'tudes like yours  And as for going along on my "trip" who asked ya to come?If you used reason when you read my posts instead of your sarcastic wit you would realize that what I am saying is you can't go along on anyone's trip but your own It is the fact we all share the same basic sensorium that we agree on "reality" at all WR
--------------------
To old for this place
|
dee_N_ae
\/\/¡†¢h |-|øµ§³ ¢åâ€
Registered: 08/16/02
Posts: 2,473
Loc: The Shadow of Neptune
|
 Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Sclorch]
#1109943 - 12/04/02 12:56 PM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I hardly ever ask anyone to prove to me something they've just said.
It almost seems rude.
What's wrong with giving a SHRED, a mere SLIVER of your consciousness over to the idea that something you don't believe in is possible and happenes... no matter what you believe?
They way I see it (and I certainly don't expect anyone will agree with me ), there's really no point in asking for proof.
Sure it may make it seem like your point of view is "right" at the time, or whatever... but...
In the grand scheme of things, isn't digging for concrete, absolute proof really just a joke?
Study quantum theory...the HUP...
If we can't say for sure where a photon is EXACTLY then what's the point of knowing that anything does or does not exist, exactly? (ok that's a bit extreme, but it helps me prove my point  )
Why jump all over someone for saying they had an Alien experience or experienced telepathy, telekinesis or anything?
Why not just question them about the experience and use the information collected in your ongoing research of how DMT in the brain and un/sub-conscious archetypes are the real cause of Alien encounters, etc etc.?
(just using an example)
Anyway, I think that my point is: Even if there's no proof, so what? That doesn't change the fact that shit happens and people experience things you may not believe to be possible.
Edited by dee_N_ae (12/04/02 01:17 PM)
|
3eyedgod
trippinkid
Registered: 11/24/02
Posts: 684
Loc: Far away and very near
Last seen: 20 years, 8 months
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: dee_N_ae]
#1110050 - 12/04/02 01:37 PM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I hardly ever ask anyone to prove to me something they've just said.
It almost seems rude.
What's wrong with giving a SHRED, a mere SLIVER of your consciousness over to the idea that something you don't believe in is possible and happenes... no matter what you believe?
They way I see it (and I certainly don't expect anyone will agree with me ),
Anyway, I think that my point is: Even if there's no proof, so what? That doesn't change the fact that shit happens and people experience things you may not believe to be possible.
I agree with you
--------------------
Without everything wouldn't nothing be everything and without nothing wouldn't everything be nothing.I am the beginning and the end,the source and the void, the light and the darkness,i am but a small drop of the ocean yet i am an ocean unto myself
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: whiterasta]
#1110112 - 12/04/02 02:00 PM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Between wretching perhaps you can explain how ANY data is not derived via the 5-6 physical senses or through the construct we call thought.
Never said I could using that criterion. But using logic and philosophy it is abundantly clear that this reality exists and is independent of the mind.
Please Mr Mushrooms let's not be so arrogant to hold any representations of reality to be absolute.
Ah the old 'arrogant' card, is it? Is that how you deal with a person that you cannot provide substantive evidence for? Strikes me as a bit ad hominem. Shall I say in return please let's not be so insane to hold this entire reality to the whims of your need to feel at peace? Hardly.
Since you were the one bringing forth this issue that I shall, in the interest of keeping to the topic, ask you! to provide some evidence for what I see as patent nonsense.
Please show use how this reality is not absolute. I'm dying to hear it.
They are merely consistantly reproduced by senses and thought,not necessarily accurate representations of reality.
And you can provide evidence for this, can't you? I repeat my request.
For instance Earths gravity.Sensualy it seems as if the Earth "pulls" us down.We then create instruments which we use and our senses create the thought that gravity is a warp in space-time and we derive that the Earth is not "pulling"us ,we are accelerating down the space-time curve.Now without using any of these means Mr.Mushrooms describe gravity.You cannot.
No, I cannot when you have predetermined the instruments at my disposal. Similarly, if I poke out your eardrums and ask you to tell me what is playing on the radio you cannot do that either.
What are you driving at, phenomenalism? That has been refuted for some time now. I suggest you do some study before you expose your ignorance any further.
What I am saying is simple quantum physics.The Observer affects the Observed,Changing the reality of the Observed.Now if you wish to limit YOUR reality to a strictly Newtonian physics then you will miss most of the latest thought on "reality".
You have misunderstood quantum mechanics if you think it provides evidence for phenomenalism.
BTW I find "reality" neither difficult to deal with nor do I deny I exist within it I just do not hold my interpretations of my subjective or "objective" surroundings to be absolute
If you don't find reality to be difficult to deal with then what is the justification for clinging to an antiquated belief like phenomenalism? I am just spitballing here but I'll bet you have clung to this belief for a long time. It's hard to let go of precious nuggets, isn't it?
And yes at times I have had the pleasure of "groking the oneness" and "feeling the peace" and other times I've copped shitty 'tudes like yours
Ah yes, the ol' "shitty 'tudes" card. Perhaps, and here I go spitballing again, you should spend more time grokking the oneness and less time telling people reality isn't real.
And as for going along on my "trip" who asked ya to come?
You did, when you started prattling your nonsense. This is one time I will not remain silent and let you or others think I have bought a load of hogwash like you are selling.
To quote Jack Nicholson, "Sell crazy somewhere else. We're all stocked up around here."
As to using reason to read your posts is concerned, I do. That is why I decided to rebut your argument.
Don't take any of this hard or in a spirit in which is was not intended. I am not coming down on YOU! I am coming down on phenonmenalism. To think that YOU are the brunt of my post is to engage yourself in your own ego. It is unlikely you will find any "onenes" or "peace" that way.
Again, I repeat my request. If you have evidence that this reality is not absolute then please post it. Could be the next big breakthrough in philosophy. Or don't you want the Nobel prize?
Cheers,
Edited by Mr_Mushrooms (12/04/02 02:07 PM)
|
whiterasta
Day careobserver
Registered: 04/09/02
Posts: 1,780
Loc: Oregon
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Sclorch]
#1110266 - 12/04/02 02:49 PM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
What we're talking about here is this consensus subjective reality we all share.
That's just it Sclorch we DO NOT share the same subjective reality only the consensual objective reality.This becomes apparent when taking witness statements or listening to our Attorney General  .We each experience reality slightly differently subjectively and agree sensualy on objective reality.
Burden of proof is an interesing concept as it usually entails creating a consensual version of reality that has enough objective evidence to establish one version of reality over another(or unreality as the case may be) Of course the manner in which objective evidence is presented can indeed weight it's interpretation with subjective opinion.
I hope I have obfusicated myself completly As always stimulating chat Sclorch although I do realize we are on different wavelengths in some ways  I understand pragmatism just not myopia
--------------------
To old for this place
|
whiterasta
Day careobserver
Registered: 04/09/02
Posts: 1,780
Loc: Oregon
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: ]
#1110326 - 12/04/02 03:03 PM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
If you can pinpoint the mass and position of an electron I WILL concede that "this" reality is absolute.Quantum physics states that "reality" demands that certain events will occur in this reality it also states that "other" realities" exist with different criteria.mearly the fact that there is the possibility of other realities denies the absolute nature of this particular one reality we share Peace MM even if it is real it ain't permanent WR
PS one cannot use logic and reason without the physical construct called "mind" considering that it cannot even be adequatly described(mind) saying that it's constucts "logic and reason" can prove anything is nothing short of mental egotism.Can you even prove the existance of "mind" in it's absence? If not then reality is not absolute.Say someone said "hey Mr.Mushroom I got this thing you can't see,hear,or touch,and without it's interface with my body It still exists you just can't experience it" Would you believe?
In physics there are no absolutes merely phase changes I expect "reality" to hold to this principle
--------------------
To old for this place
Edited by whiterasta (12/04/02 03:17 PM)
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
 Re: Burden of Proof [Re: whiterasta]
#1110546 - 12/04/02 03:55 PM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
It's funny how many times I have to repeat myself...
How did any of you get the idea that I am all about absolutism?
Was it when you read my post on HETEROabsolutism?
Was it when I constantly refered to Nietzsche as a ZEN MASTER?
Was it when I blatantly stated that absolutism is a crap concept (but we all KNOW that I really wholeheartedly support absolutism)?
Seriously, reading comprehension is a major issue here. Or is it merely a MEMORY problem?
I don't know... never claimed I did. I'm just as lost in this abyss as everyone else... the only difference between me and the many others is that I prefer that my system of working quasi-beliefs (in the spirit of heteroabsolutism) cohere as much as possible with the experiences of myself and others. Coherence, people! That's all I'm after. It's how man and mind have come this far. It's how we'll go furthUr.
--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: whiterasta]
#1110583 - 12/04/02 04:10 PM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
"If you can pinpoint the mass and position of an electron I WILL concede that "this" reality is absolute."
Oh no you don't. This is exactly what Sclorch is talking about. The burden of proof lies with you, dear friend. If you cannot provide it then your ideas are nonsense.
"Quantum physics states that "reality" demands that certain events will occur in this reality it also states that "other" realities" exist with different criteria."
As I said before you have misread quantum mechanics. You are relying on reductionism for evidence. That also is another error. You seem to ladle error upon error.
Quantum mechanics is a theory about what happens where normal reality does not exist. Clinging to it will not provide you or anyone else with the necessary tools to live adequately in this common experience we all share. If you are wounded perhaps that is why. Don't run from reality just because you can't cope with it. That will never solve anyone's problems.
Have you heard of entia rationalis? I doubt it because you are conflating it with entia reale.
There are two threads in this forum that I advise you to read. The first one explains why quantum mechanics cannot be used as you are using it. Use the search engine and type the words "quantum mechanics" into the area for the title. I created that thread in an effort to steer people away from the error you are making.
Check out the thread and let me know what you think. Beyond that I cannot help you.
Peace,
|
whiterasta
Day careobserver
Registered: 04/09/02
Posts: 1,780
Loc: Oregon
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Sclorch]
#1110612 - 12/04/02 04:19 PM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I got YOU on absolutism Sclorch,Heteroabsolutism all the way the post was for Mr mushrooms not you. And like you I prefer coherence,I perhaps am more comfortable with chaos however And have pehaps a slightly different view of chaos' role in the manifestation of "reality".....back to burden of proof LOL .It is I believe in our concepts of what provides coherence in which I believe we are in differing thought modes.I believe coherence is provided by patterns arising from chaos,Chaos is everpresent and is the infinite implicit order.Coherent reality is created by self-replicating patterns which due to arguable reasons recurr in a predictable fashion.
Mr Mushrooms:I find your arguments fundamentaly simplistic and myopic but don't take it personaly,most philosophers have a limited understanding of physics I did however enjoy your aggressive retorts Enjoyed the afternoon blokes,have a fine evening WR
--------------------
To old for this place
|
GoBlue!
Tool Rules - DBK
Registered: 10/27/02
Posts: 576
Loc: Ann Arbor, MI
Last seen: 20 years, 7 months
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Sclorch]
#1110621 - 12/04/02 04:23 PM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Wow, I think the rationalists are finally starting to have an impact in these forums! When I first joined the Shroomery a few months ago, it seemed like only about 1 in 10 posters were rationalists, the rest were "spiritual believers" or whatever the appropriate word is. In this thread, over 1/2 of the posters seem to believe in burden of proof. I guess it's rational to be rational!
--------------------
Just stating my thoughts, not trying to offend
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: whiterasta]
#1110707 - 12/04/02 04:54 PM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I find your arguments fundamentaly simplistic and myopic but don't take it personaly,most philosophers have a limited understanding of physics
However we find each other's arguments is really not the point, is it? I oftentimes find those enamoured with quantum mechanics to have a very poor understanding of philosophy and reality.
I did however enjoy your aggressive retorts
Think of them as trying to help. When I try to help I see myself as assertive, not aggressive. When I am attacking an idea I can become very aggressive. Especially if the idea is nonsense.
Tell you what, and this is just for you I am not going to entertain comments about this from anyone else as I do not have that much time, here is the complete text from the thread I recommended that you read but that you did not. Hiding again?
"Consider this:
In the first place, let us note Niels Bohr's principle of complimentarity, which amounts to saying that conceiving the electron as a wave and conceiving it as a particle were not only alternative ways of conceiving it but complimentary ways of doing so.
As Werner Heisenberg pointed out, these are "two complimentary descriptions of the same reality.... These descriptions can only partially true, there must be limitations to the use of the particle concept as well as the wave concept, else one could not avoid contradictions. If one takes into account those limitations which can be expressed by uncertainty relations, the contradictions disappear."
In other words, Bohr's principle affirms the principle of non-contradiction as governing our thought, and it is a correct rule of thought only if non-contradiction is an ontological principle governing reality also.
In the second place, let us observe the extraordinary difference between experimental measurements performed by scientists in the realm of classical or macroscopic physics, the realm of objects larger that the atom. Here the properties of the object being measured by the physicists are properties that inhere in the objects themselves, and would exist in reality as such whether measured by physicists or not. In other words, the physical properties of the object and the object itself are not in any way affected by their scientific measurement.
The difference between quantum theory and classical physics lies in the fact that when we try to measure what is happening inside the atom our experimental measurements are intrusive; they affect the object being studied and confer upon the sub-atomic entities or events the properties attributed to them. Supra-atomic physical entities or events, on the other hand, are affected by our measurements to a negligible degree. The properties assigned to subatomic objects or events are conferred upon them by the experimental measurements that quantum physicists make.
The crucial problem to be solved, which Einstein tried but failed to solve, can be formulated by two alternative questions as follows:
1. Is the physical reality of objects and the events within the interior of the atom in itself indeterminate in character; or
2. Is reality at the level of subatomic objects and events indeterminate in itself?
The question was not answered satisfactorily by the thought experiment called the "Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox." The later thinking and experimental work that led to the confirmation of the Bell theorem favors the second answer. Almost all quantum physicists today accept the answer as correct. They think they know that subatomic reality is indeterminate in character. The regularities observed at the supra-atomic level, they say, arise solely from the statistical predictability of large aggregates of atoms. The indeterminacy attributed to subatomic objects and events by Heisenberg's uncertainty principles is not just their indeterminability by us; it is intrinsic to subatomic reality.
Now we can ask the question, "Are the cosmic principles of uncertainty, both in the subatomic and in the supra-atomic levels, epistemic or ontological?" That is to say, do they indicate:
1. Values that are indeterminate by us; or
2. Values that are in themselves indeterminate?
The two questions to which the quantum physicists think they know the right answers are philosophical, not scientific, questions. Questions that, if they can be answered at all, can only be answered by thought, not by research. Unfortunately for its effect on our thought, the quantum physicists presume to answer the questions as if the questions were answerable only by them in the light of their research findings. That is a serious mistake on their part. It is an egregious example of the presumption that scientists in many fields have made again and again in the current times.
Atoms really existed in all the centuries before the scientific work that established their real existence. Atoms had interiors in which physical entities existed and physical events occurred in all the centuries before these facts were 'scientifically established'. It is certainly fair to ask what the subatomic reality was during all those centuries. Was it like the subatomic reality described by the current quantum theory? Was it a physical reality having all the intrinsic character of indeterminacy, or was it an intrinsically determinate physical reality like the supra-atomic reality of classical physics?
To answer that question philosophically, it is logically necessary to bear in mind one point that the quantum physicists appear to forget or overlook. At the same time that the Heisenberg uncertainty principles were established, quantum physicists acknowledged that the intrusive experimental measurements that provided the data used in the mathematical formulations of quantum theory conferred on subatomic objects and events their indeterminate character.
The foregoing italicized words imply that the indeterminate character of subatomic objects and events is not intrinsic to them, not properties they have quite apart from their being affected in any way by the measurements made by intrusive experimental devices.
If the cause of the indeterminate values attributed to subatomic objects and events in quantum theory is the intrusive and disturbing measurement of those objects and events, then does not the elimination of that cause also eliminate its effect?
In other words, was not the physical reality of subatomic objects determinate in all those earlier centuries when the atom existed and had an interior that the experimental measurements of quantum mechanics did not intrude upon and disturb? Can quantum mechanics through its experimentally performed measurements be a disturbing and intrusive influence that affects the character of subatomic reality and, at the same time, can its exponents be certain that subatomic reality has the intrinsic indeterminacy that quantum theory attributes to it? Is the unexamined interior of the atom intrinsically indeterminate or is it like the determinate character of supra-atomic reality?
God knows the answer, as Einstein at the beginning of his controversy with Bohr declared when he said that God does not throw dice, which implied that the unexamined subatomic reality is a determinate reality. Whether or not God knows the answer, experimental science does not know it. Nor does philosophy know it with certitude. But philosophy can give a good reason for thinking that the subatomic reality is intrinsically determinate. The reason is that quantum theorists repeatedly acknowledge that their intrusive and disturbing measurements are the cause of the indeterminacy they attribute to subatomic objects and events. It follows, therefore, that that indeterminacy cannot be intrinsic to subatomic reality.
Unfortunately quantum theory has inadvertently given undue comfort to the worst tendency in contemporary thought, philosophical idealism or constructivism, which denies a reality that exists in complete independence of the human mind and that has whatever intrinsic character it has without being affected by how the human mind knows it or thinks about it.
To sum up:
Quantum theory is a theory of the examined interior of the atom. The scientific examination of that interior is, according to quantum theory, an intrusive disturbance of what is going on there. It follows that further development of quantum and additional scientific investigation cannot tell us about the character of the unexamined atomic interior.
Einstein was right that quantum theory is an incomplete account of subatomic reality. But he was wrong in thinking that that incompleteness could be remedied by means at the disposal of science. Why? Because the question that quantum theory and subatomic research cannot answer is a question for philosophy, not for science."
There, enjoy!
Edited by Mr_Mushrooms (12/04/02 05:00 PM)
|
Grav
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 4,454
Last seen: 11 years, 3 months
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: GoBlue!]
#1110744 - 12/04/02 05:03 PM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
this thread is dismantling my brain as i read it.
you guys all put up very convincing arguments.
I guess the only one I could see as being 'right' would maybe be the one who has experienced more un-biased reality than the others.... i mean like interacted with a greater variety of the aspects of life, not read more books on it..
in that sense there can never be a conclusion on a message board.. i dont think the brain will ever be satisfied with a group of words that SEEM to make sense, it has it's own validation system.
but this is getting off track so....
keep up the debate guys, quite interesting
|
whiterasta
Day careobserver
Registered: 04/09/02
Posts: 1,780
Loc: Oregon
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: ]
#1110832 - 12/04/02 05:31 PM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
excellent summation of some quantum mechanics Quote:
The two questions to which the quantum physicists think they know the right answers are philosophical, not scientific, questions. Questions that, if they can be answered at all, can only be answered by thought, not by research. Unfortunately for its effect on our thought, the quantum physicists presume to answer the questions as if the questions were answerable only by them in the light of their research findings. That is a serious mistake on their part. It is an egregious example of the presumption that scientists in many fields have made again and again in the current times
This is Scientism as Sclorch posted about.Something which I to abhor;) I think perhaps my views are perhaps more eastern in philosophical root .I am a follower of the Tarthang Tulku a Budhist philosopher/Physicist who IS addressing these holes that science leaves in understanding.Me thinks I will be comprehended poorly or even misunderstood completly trying to explain this mans thoughts........the book is Time,Space,and Knowledge by Tarthang Tulku It addresses these issues completly and much better than I can.All I can do is recomend it as excellent reading which logicly and rationaly brings a cohesive form to the chaotic polarities of thought in science and philosophy.Like you I have probably spent far too much time on this already so I leave with that WR
--------------------
To old for this place
|
falcon
Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,043
Last seen: 3 hours, 43 minutes
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: ]
#1110909 - 12/04/02 06:01 PM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
That which measures has mass, oh, things in motion have a tendency to revolve, in motion, around mass, oh do si do and around we go, oh.
--------------------
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
I have done it before and it never has an effect on the true believer so what is the point?
|
Murex
Reality Hacker
Registered: 07/28/02
Posts: 3,599
Loc: Traped in a shell.
Last seen: 16 years, 7 months
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Grav]
#1111048 - 12/04/02 06:44 PM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
this thread is dismantling my brain as i read it.
I was going to say something like that.
As for this......discussion-
Why are people here who want hard facts here in SP&S? Can anything 'spiritual' be proven? Should anyones' personal Philosophy be the norm for others?
I mean, shit......
--------------------
What if everything around you
Isn't quite as it seems?
What if all the world you think you know,
Is an elaborate dream?
And if you look at your reflection,
Is it all you want it to be?
|
Zero7a1
Leaving YourWasteland
Registered: 10/23/02
Posts: 3,594
Loc: Passing Cloud
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: ]
#1111071 - 12/04/02 06:48 PM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
no one has talked about dreams...? what can you prove in a dream? "have you ever had a dream you were so sure that was real?" i have. but i knew it wasnt "reality" i was floating. but that right there has gotten me to a world that defies explanation or conventional means for understanding or whatever.
does duality ring a bell to anyone? what about the be nice policy? lol
this believer thing... anyone think that some people dont care enough to try and explain what they obviously can barely understand themselves? they are just looking for answers to there own questions. that maybe these things which people see, are using logic to try and accomplish? maybe some people dont want to fight or take part in a duality which they obviously arent a part of. maybe this forum should divide into the dualists/ non dualists then the non dualists split into belivers/non beileivers or skeptics? see, i know you can all see. why divide ourselves? we find out so much more together. we can build what is obviously true and that which is not and use our findings to build onto a larger truth... i think this is a better way, than lets say trying to divide into sub sections divide and divide. shit were not a virus! let us be like shrooms that is afterall why they do what they do is it not?
--------------------
What?
|
Murex
Reality Hacker
Registered: 07/28/02
Posts: 3,599
Loc: Traped in a shell.
Last seen: 16 years, 7 months
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Zero7a1]
#1111089 - 12/04/02 06:53 PM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah, what about other states of consiousness that can't be explained by science? It's all within the human mind, and the brain is a giant piece of tissue- but thoughts are intangable, but yet we know they exist.
We all have done or do mushrooms right? Isn't that what brought us here?
--------------------
What if everything around you
Isn't quite as it seems?
What if all the world you think you know,
Is an elaborate dream?
And if you look at your reflection,
Is it all you want it to be?
|
Baby_Hitler
Errorist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,652
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 4 hours, 18 minutes
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Murex]
#1111940 - 12/04/02 10:47 PM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I agree burden of proof is irrelevant to spirituality.
Anyone who demands it is daft.
--------------------
This space for rent
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Murex]
#1112032 - 12/04/02 11:20 PM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
While things that are spiritual cannot be proven it is imperative to understand that the universe that exists independently of our mind can and does govern things that are spiritual.
If a person claims to be able to read minds the burden of proof is found in an experiment conducted in the physical universe. There is a connection. A person can believe whatever they want to believe but if it contradicts some basic principle of logic it is inaccurate at the least or an indication of mental illness at worst.
Here is how logic and philosophy impact 'spiritual' truths.
Here it will be helpful to explore the history of the idea of the unity of truth, how truth was unified in the beginning and how it became two seemingly separate non-overlapping entities.
In the ancient past there was but one field of study that concerned truth in regard to the world and its origins, Theology. In the Western world this was for a time commingled with Philosophy. Later Philosophy pulled away from its roots and established itself independently. After a time Philosophy gave birth to Science and it pulled away from its source of origin as well. The thinkers in these various disciplines used various approaches to arrive at truth and it wasn't long before the different ideas and their proponents clashed.
As far as I know the first clash of substance began in Baghdad circa 1075 AD. There was a Muslim philosopher/theologian named Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, sometimes known as Algazeli who wrote a book called, "The Incoherence of Philosophers" also known as "The Destruction of the Philosopher." The central theme of the book is a critique of philosophy in the light of religion. Algazeli started out as a philosopher and left it to become an Islamic mystic, but not before writing his "Destruction" book. He found that pure philosophy could not lead a person to the truth and his ideas about skepticism predated Hume's by centuries.
Enter the Islamic philosopher Ibn Rushd Averroes, 1126-98 AD from Spain who wrote a book answering Algazeli's called, "Incoherence of the Incoherence" or "The Destruction of the Destruction." In it he proclaimed that there were two different bodies of truth: on the one hand the truths of faith; on the other hand the truths of reason. These two bodies of truth existed in what might be called "logic-tight" compartments. This argument was not a heated one in the way that arguments like this are in the world today. There were no headlines, no flashes on the Internet, no bulletins at the bottom of the TV screen. Many were unaware of the argument at all.
In the time of Isaac Newton the unity was still somewhat preserved though the schism had begun in a remote corner of the world centuries earlier. Newton's religious views were a product of both his era and his temperament. Newton was born on Christmas day in 1642, the year in which Galileo died. For the last ten years of his life Galileo had been under a form of house arrest in Italy-eventually in his own home in the hills above Florence. The Inquisition of the Roman Catholic Church had tried him in 1633 for holding heretical views about the motion of the Earth. His heresy lay in believing in the Copernican theory-the thesis advocated by the Polish astronomer Copernicus that the Earth moved around the Sun-which appeared to contradict the Bible. At the time, a man could go to prison-or worse- for holding such heretical views in the name of science. In Newton's time, there was more freedom to engage in science, but the idea that science and religion were separate enterprises would have appeared absurd to Newton. For Newton, the Bible was the literal truth and could be used as scientific evidence in the same way as any other kind of scientific observation. Newton spent a great deal of his time studying the Bible to learn when the universe was had been created and when it would end.
One might give many more examples from the history of the natural sciences or from stages in the development of historical research about past events, but more examples are not needed for an understanding of the point being made.
There is a time for mutually co-existing ideas (pluralism). In matters of taste for example two people can disagree and it can add flavor and variety to the world. I think that chocolate is the best and you think that vanilla is the best. I think that democracy is the best and you think that socialism is the best. The Latin phrase for this is "De gustibus non disputandum est." This means in matters of taste there is no disputing. A less well-known phrase is "De veritae disputandum est" which means about matters of truth we can (and I add should) engage in dispute. The reason for this is that in certain areas only one idea can be true at the same time. In history, mathematics, science, philosophy and religion there is room for competing and conflicting theories, hypotheses, doctrines, or propositions, only as long as no one of them is, at a given time, established as true.
This is what is known in logic as non-contradiction. The logic of incompatible propositions is formulated by modern logicians in a manner that is slightly different from the way it was treated in antiquity. Aristotle, for example, distinguished incompatible propositions that are contradictory from incompatible propositions that are only contrary.
In the case of contradictories, no middle ground is possible. The theistic affirmation "God exists" and the atheistic denial "God does not exist" stand in contradiction to one another: both cannot be true and both cannot be false; if one is true, the other MUST be false.
The opposition of propositions that are contraries, not contradictories, is a weaker opposition; and a middle ground is possible. The monotheistic affirmation that there is only one God and the polytheistic affirmation that there are many gods cannot both be true, but both can be false. The atheist may be right that neither God nor gods exist.
Modern logicians speak of strong and weak disjunctions. A disjunction here is being used in the sense of proper logic i.e. a proposition that presents two or more alternative terms, with the assertion that only one is true or neither is true. A strong disjunction is like the opposition of contradictories: either the proposition P is true or the proposition not-P is true, but both cannot be true and both cannot be false. In contrast, a weak disjunction is the opposition of contraries: either P or not-P is true, but both can be false. Here a middle ground is possible. For example, the two generalizations, "All dogs are green" and "No dogs are green" cannot both be true; if one is true the other is false; but BOTH can be false as they are when the truth lies in the middle ground: " Some dogs are green" and "Some dogs are not green."
In religion there are truth claims that are descriptive and truth claims that are prescriptive. A descriptive truth claim is the claim made by the Bible that a person by the name of Jesus of Nazareth lived, died, and was resurrected from the grave in a supernatural or supra-natural way. This is not allegorical nor is it poetical, it is claimed by the Bible as a literal truth. An example of a prescriptive truth claim is the commandment, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy might, heart, soul, and strength." Whenever a descriptive truth claim comes into conflict with a scientific truth claim in the manner of a contradictory one of them has to be right and the other one is wrong. The only exception is if the statements are not contradictories but contraries. In that case they both many be wrong. If the Bible says that such and such a place was where a town used to exist and sciences proves that no town ever existed there, science is right and the Bible is wrong, though both may be wrong if this matter is a contrary.
Hope that clears this up. This is why I am so admanant about denying physical reality.
Cheers,
|
Murex
Reality Hacker
Registered: 07/28/02
Posts: 3,599
Loc: Traped in a shell.
Last seen: 16 years, 7 months
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: ]
#1112042 - 12/04/02 11:25 PM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
This doesn't prove anything.
Hozabout prooving that a thought exists?
--------------------
What if everything around you
Isn't quite as it seems?
What if all the world you think you know,
Is an elaborate dream?
And if you look at your reflection,
Is it all you want it to be?
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Murex]
#1112157 - 12/05/02 12:04 AM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
This doesn't prove anything.
Read it until it makes sense, then come back and change your post. Thanks.
-mgmt.
_________________________________
Good (thorough) post Mr Mushrooms!
When it comes to "this or that", we must follow logic... hence the whole "burden of proof" thing comes into play. I think I was aiming at the descriptive truth claims in regards to the existence of aliens etc.
--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 11 days
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Sclorch]
#1112493 - 12/05/02 02:13 AM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
"I prefer that my system of working quasi-beliefs (in the spirit of heteroabsolutism) cohere as much as possible with the experiences of myself and others. Coherence, people! That's all I'm after. It's how man and mind have come this far. It's how we'll go furthUr. "
So if everyone thought like you we would progress faster then?
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 11 days
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: GazzBut]
#1112498 - 12/05/02 02:17 AM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Just a little word of advice to some of you supposed philisophical heavyweights with your oft assered super powers of logic - making comments about the character of the person you are debating with is not an effective method of debate. In fact it is irrelevant and totally uneccesary. If you wish to refute somebodys arguement simply stick to the subject and leave all the sly digs and petty name calling where it belongs - in the schoolyard.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: GazzBut]
#1112567 - 12/05/02 02:47 AM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
So if everyone thought like you we would progress faster then?
Why not just shorten your statement to: If everyone thought, we would progress faster.
Do not confuse an opinion or an adopted posture as thinking.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 11 days
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Swami]
#1112723 - 12/05/02 03:51 AM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
So you dont have opinions Swamster? You just think....
--------------------
Always Smi2le
Edited by GazzBut (12/05/02 04:02 AM)
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: GazzBut]
#1112759 - 12/05/02 04:25 AM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
...but arrogance certainlly does...
Thank you for your professional assessment., however we already had the "psychoanalyze Swami" thread. More poeple here that take umbrage with my writing focus on my personality and motivation INSTEAD OF RESPONDING TO THE POINTS MADE. That tells me that they are almost incapable of critical thinking and attack instead. I expect more from you as you do not seem to generally fall into this catagory.
sadly what your EGO takes such great pleasure in bandying about as logic seems to me nothing more that a set of prejudiced beliefs
You seem to jump to false conclusions fequently.
backed up with the claim that if certain experiments\claims have been proven to be false or erroneous then all claims of a similar nature are also false or erroneous.
More reading comprehension errors. I have never stated that once. What I have stated is that when a believer presents "best evidence" and it falls flat the entiire field is suspect; not one UFO hoax makes all sightings false. Attempt to see the difference.
That is not logic, that is generalisation.
Your whole post has been a generalisation.
I just feel you jump to the conclusion that many things are 100% false a little too easily, which logically speaking is the same error the "Believers" are making.
Your feelings are not very accurate. Have stated many times that I have done more research than any ten members here. Assuming an extraordinary claim is false until shown otherwise is hardly the same as believing every fairly tale that comes long. This is called discernment.
As for burdens of proof, there is no claimant,
Guess we read different posts (I read them all). There are many outlandish claims made here.
no prosecutor - so i dont see the relevance.
Your inability to see any relevance does not mean that it doesn't correlate.
It just looks like the skeptics trying to make it easier to claim a victory on the behalf of their cherished beliefs.
Whatever that means. This is repeated so many times as an excuse for an inability to provide and sunstantiation. I would LOVE TO believe in life-after-death, UFOs, ETs, telekinesis, etc., but require more than mere say-so or desire to accept them.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: dee_N_ae]
#1112764 - 12/05/02 04:35 AM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I hardly ever ask anyone to prove to me something they've just said.
It almost seems rude.
Discussion on a discussion board, "OH MY GAWD!" what was I thinking? Didn't realize this was the "Post a Story and Back Me Up" board.
When one is deciding to take a loved one diagnosed with cancer to a Filipino psychic surgeon instead of an oncologist and asks for proof, is that being rude?
When a member states that they can astral travel to my house and I design a placard with a symbol to test that, is that being rude?
When a memeber says the world is ending and we should quit our jobs and become survivalists in the remote reaches of Montana, and I ask what this prophecy is based on, is that being rude?
What's wrong with giving a SHRED, a mere SLIVER of your consciousness over to the idea that something you don't believe in is possible and happenes... no matter what you believe?
What's wrong with giving a SHRED, a mere SLIVER of your consciousness over to the idea that something you believe in is misinterpretation and false conclusions and impossible... no matter what you believe?
You, like most believers, fail to understand that critical investigation is the key to understanding ANY phenomenon.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
Edited by Swami (12/05/02 05:10 AM)
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 11 days
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Swami]
#1112776 - 12/05/02 04:54 AM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
"motivation INSTEAD OF RESPONDING TO THE POINTS MADE. That tells me that they are almost incapable of critical thinking and attack instead. I expect more from you as you do not seem to generally fall into this catagory."
I admit labelling you was wrong. However, this is a tactic you are not adverse to employing yourself upon occasion!!
"You seem to jump to false conclusions fequently."
I stated an opinion, I did not jump to any conclusions.
"That is not logic, that is generalisation.
Your whole post has been a generalisation."
Fine, if thats your opinion.
Basically, I think we are on the same side of the fence. If you are actually willing to accept the possibillity of there being an element of truth in some of the weird and wonderful claims made here.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: GazzBut]
#1112835 - 12/05/02 06:58 AM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
So if everyone thought like you we would progress faster then?
Or at least if everyone thought for themselves, rather than having an implanted microchip pulling the strings. Since you are only able to parrot the views of the cabal who had your microchip installed, you cannot be criticized for holding the position you do -- it's not your fault.
pinky
--------------------
|
whiterasta
Day careobserver
Registered: 04/09/02
Posts: 1,780
Loc: Oregon
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Swami]
#1112886 - 12/05/02 07:37 AM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
What's wrong with giving a SHRED, a mere SLIVER of your consciousness over to the idea that something you don't believe in is possible and happenes... no matter what you believe?
What's wrong with giving a SHRED, a mere SLIVER of your consciousness over to the idea that something you believe in is misinterpretation and false conclusions and impossible... no matter what you believe?
I need to ask why these two modes of thought are mutualy exclusive?I after sleeping on it believe this is the ultimate point I try to make; even though diametricly opposed,both thought mode are valid .Here's a little WR wisdom for ya'll "Out of paradox,Arises understanding"Ya'll are wrong,Ya'll are right, out of this will true understanding arise.......but probably not today WR
--------------------
To old for this place
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 11 days
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Phred]
#1112919 - 12/05/02 07:59 AM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Keep trying, you may get a reaction out of me other than sympathy.
But I doubt it.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Swami]
#1113114 - 12/05/02 09:30 AM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Have stated many times that I have done more research than any ten members here.
Sure, you've stated it but that doesn't make it true.
You said you'd watched area 51 through a pair of binoculars once and because you didn't see any UFO's this was conclusive proof they don't exist. Sorry, but I don't call that research.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
 Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Xlea321]
#1113220 - 12/05/02 10:07 AM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
It's closer to research than watching Spielberg's Taken or reading Communion and then pretending that you've actually done something. I don't think Swami had the security clearance to give Area 51 a proper treatment... so he did what he could.
BTW, what the fuck happened to MY thread here?
Every friggin' time Alex posts he's completely ignoring the topic at hand and is bent on trying to "disprove" Swami. It's incredibly annoying/counterproductive/whatever and it should be stopped. Unless Alex IS Swami (uh... yeah), then it would be amusing...
--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Sclorch]
#1113355 - 12/05/02 10:37 AM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Poor schlorch is feeling ignored. Somebody quick! Verbally attack him so that he can feel needed.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: GazzBut]
#1113390 - 12/05/02 10:45 AM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Gazzbut writes:
Keep trying, you may get a reaction out of me other than sympathy.
Sorry, I don't understand that response. Are you trying to claim that your thoughts and actions are not in fact controlled by the microchip, or are you merely trying (clumsily) to divert attention from it?
pinky
--------------------
|
whiterasta
Day careobserver
Registered: 04/09/02
Posts: 1,780
Loc: Oregon
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Swami]
#1113394 - 12/05/02 10:46 AM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
See what you started Sclorch.......You and your subtle instigation have completly derailed your own thread Are you in advertizing? you do get the hits BTW I agree with your astute assesment of BoP and apologize for contributing to the dichotomy(trichtomy,N-chotomy?) of your topic.Be happy, you turn up the volume of discussion (and elevate it ) with most of your posts and I personaly value your insight Peace and lucidity to you! WR
--------------------
To old for this place
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Sclorch]
#1113700 - 12/05/02 12:17 PM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
BTW, what the fuck happened to MY thread here?
Damn sclorch, sounds like you're finally getting a handle on the rest of us feel when someone starts a spiritual thread and you and swami make 50 posts saying "Can you prove that happened?".
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
dee_N_ae
\/\/¡†¢h |-|øµ§³ ¢åâ€
Registered: 08/16/02
Posts: 2,473
Loc: The Shadow of Neptune
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Swami]
#1114140 - 12/05/02 02:19 PM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Discussion on a discussion board, "OH MY GAWD!" what was I thinking? Didn't realize this was the "Post a Story and Back Me Up" board.
LOL!
When one is deciding to take a loved one diagnosed with cancer to a Filipino psychic surgeon instead of an oncologist and asks for proof, is that being rude?
When a member states that they can astral travel to my house and I design a placard with a symbol to test that, is that being rude?
When a memeber says the world is ending and we should quit our jobs and become survivalists in the remote reaches of Montana, and I ask what this prophecy is based on, is that being rude?
*sigh*
I was speaking more about extraordinary occurances that may be considered by an individual to be of a deeply personal or private nature, such as alien encounters could be.
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Xlea321]
#1114492 - 12/05/02 03:43 PM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Damn Alex, sounds like you STILL haven't addressed the topic. If you could only understand this thread, you'll know why Swami (or whomever) has to make 50 posts just to drive his point home. Why don't you help us all conserve energy and time by actually learning how to avoid pseudoreasoning, slanters, and fallacies. Thanks.
--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
Strumpling
Neuronaut
Registered: 10/11/02
Posts: 7,571
Loc: Hyperspace
Last seen: 12 years, 10 months
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Sclorch]
#1114657 - 12/05/02 04:38 PM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
--------------------
Insert an "I think" mentally in front of eveything I say that seems sketchy, because I certainly don't KNOW much. Also; feel free to yell at me.
In addition: SHPONGLE
|
falcon
Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,043
Last seen: 3 hours, 43 minutes
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Sclorch]
#1114836 - 12/05/02 05:51 PM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Burden of proof is always the responability of the claiment. Logic is a flawed tool in that is relies on a belief in language.
--------------------
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
I have done it before and it never has an effect on the true believer so what is the point?
|
Murex
Reality Hacker
Registered: 07/28/02
Posts: 3,599
Loc: Traped in a shell.
Last seen: 16 years, 7 months
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Swami]
#1114869 - 12/05/02 06:07 PM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
OMG this is silly. From now on, I will do my best to not get into these arguments or even read them.
Have fun prooving you have a bigger ego than someone else.
--------------------
What if everything around you
Isn't quite as it seems?
What if all the world you think you know,
Is an elaborate dream?
And if you look at your reflection,
Is it all you want it to be?
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: falcon]
#1114881 - 12/05/02 06:11 PM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
In reply to:
Logic is a flawed tool in that is relies on a belief in language.
I wouldn't say that logic is flawed, but it is limited. You can use perfect logic but if your premises are invalid/incomplete your conclusions can be erroneous.
--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Murex]
#1114888 - 12/05/02 06:13 PM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
In the future, I will read no more posts regarding my ego.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
falcon
Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,043
Last seen: 3 hours, 43 minutes
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Evolving]
#1115038 - 12/05/02 06:41 PM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
thank you
--------------------
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
I have done it before and it never has an effect on the true believer so what is the point?
|
Murex
Reality Hacker
Registered: 07/28/02
Posts: 3,599
Loc: Traped in a shell.
Last seen: 16 years, 7 months
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Swami]
#1115123 - 12/05/02 06:57 PM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
.....but you will still write them.
--------------------
What if everything around you
Isn't quite as it seems?
What if all the world you think you know,
Is an elaborate dream?
And if you look at your reflection,
Is it all you want it to be?
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Murex]
#1117103 - 12/06/02 12:01 PM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Have fun prooving you have a bigger ego than someone else.
Don't get it yet, eh? It's cool.
Confident assertions aren't necessarily egotistical.
--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Sclorch]
#1117422 - 12/06/02 01:45 PM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
All in all though the thread had tangential remarks I really enjoyed it.
I cling to your initial idea like a drowning man grasping his last straw.
Or something like that.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: ]
#1117511 - 12/06/02 02:09 PM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I cling to your initial idea like a drowning man grasping his last straw.
Like Thor Heyerdal in "The Ra Expeditions"?
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Swami]
#1117594 - 12/06/02 02:28 PM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
|
Strumpling
Neuronaut
Registered: 10/11/02
Posts: 7,571
Loc: Hyperspace
Last seen: 12 years, 10 months
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Sclorch]
#1152307 - 12/18/02 02:14 PM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I just posted this in another topic, and I apologize for bumping this thread, but just in case somebody didn't give a crap about that other thread here's another chance that they'll learn one aspect of efficiently communicating with other individuals:
APPEAL TO IGNORANCE, a subtype of burden of proof (a type of pseudoreasoning):
Bob: The car won't start (claim #1)
Ted: Yeah, I know. Its a problem with the ignition (claim #2 - claim #1 was accepted and verified by Ted, so thats clear)
Bob: What makes you think that? (inquiry/objection - hey it could be tons of other shit too, Ted)
Ted: Well; why not? (Telling Bob to prove its NOT the ignition... thats just stupid.)
I feel I need to get this idea across because it happens all the time around here.. people are putting the burden of proof on the wrong side of their claims. If you claim God exists, and we DENY that claim, its up to YOU to prove it... there's nothing for a non-believer to proove - nothing at all. If I say there's no God - I'm denying the "god-claim."
I'm looking in this old critical thinking book and there's a comic in it that represents this well. There are these two guys in a museum standing among the dinosaur reconstructions, and one of them is saying "... but there's no proof that they DIDN'T dance EITHER!"
argh it makes so much sense to me, why don't people understand that when they claim something exists, they have to prove it - we don't have to prove it DOESN'T, because until its proven, it basically DOESN'T ANYWAY.
And please don't start acting like Plato and saying "well can we ever prove ANYTHING at ALL really?!" because thats when claims start getting even MORE absurd and useless.
Here's an excerpt from this text:
"Most often, the burden of proof should fall on those who claim something exists rather than on those who claim it doesn't [which is exactly what you guys do when you say "proove there's no god" thats putting the burden back on the person who didn't believe in anything to begin with]. There are people who believe in ghosts, not because of any evidence that there ARE ghosts, but because nobody has shown there are no such things. This is burden-of-proof pseudoreasoning because it mistakenly places the requirement of proving their position on those who do not believe in ghosts.
If you still don't care that you're resorting to pseudoreasoning, then so be it - I'll simply attempt to ignore claims like "well you can't prove that there have never been any pink elephants with purple polka-dots."
-=- Matt/Strumpling -=-
there you have it.... again.
--------------------
Insert an "I think" mentally in front of eveything I say that seems sketchy, because I certainly don't KNOW much. Also; feel free to yell at me.
In addition: SHPONGLE
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
 Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Strumpling]
#1152769 - 12/18/02 05:40 PM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I'm looking in this old critical thinking book ... "... but there's no proof that they DIDN'T dance EITHER!"
The book wouldn't happen to be Moore and Parker's "Critical Thinking" 5th edition (1998, Mayfield publishing, CSU), would it? hehehe
And please don't start acting like Plato and saying "well can we ever prove ANYTHING at ALL really?!" because thats when claims start getting even MORE absurd and useless.
Pet beliefs are a real bitch.
"well you can't prove that there have never been any pink elephants with purple polka-dots."
Of course you can't prove the inexistence of something that DOES exist:
--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
Murex
Reality Hacker
Registered: 07/28/02
Posts: 3,599
Loc: Traped in a shell.
Last seen: 16 years, 7 months
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Strumpling]
#1152828 - 12/18/02 05:56 PM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Why should I try to make people believe in my God?
.....that's just too much work.
--------------------
What if everything around you
Isn't quite as it seems?
What if all the world you think you know,
Is an elaborate dream?
And if you look at your reflection,
Is it all you want it to be?
|
Strumpling
Neuronaut
Registered: 10/11/02
Posts: 7,571
Loc: Hyperspace
Last seen: 12 years, 10 months
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Sclorch]
#1152847 - 12/18/02 06:06 PM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
6th edition, Sclorch
--------------------
Insert an "I think" mentally in front of eveything I say that seems sketchy, because I certainly don't KNOW much. Also; feel free to yell at me.
In addition: SHPONGLE
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Strumpling]
#1152931 - 12/18/02 06:35 PM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Excellent Strumpling!
When you said:
"And please don't start acting like Plato and saying "well can we ever prove ANYTHING at ALL really?!" because thats when claims start getting even MORE absurd and useless."
You weren't referring to me I hope. I have never said or intimated that.
I like this so much AND the fact that others keep making the same logical errors over and over and over again I am going to create a sticky for links to Philosophy/Logic.
Good job!
|
Strumpling
Neuronaut
Registered: 10/11/02
Posts: 7,571
Loc: Hyperspace
Last seen: 12 years, 10 months
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: ]
#1153005 - 12/18/02 07:02 PM (21 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Hey thanks man
"You weren't referring to me I hope. I have never said or intimated that."
heheh no I know you're never said or implied that... I think I've said some other things about Plato in the past and was hoping you didn't think I was talking to you.
--------------------
Insert an "I think" mentally in front of eveything I say that seems sketchy, because I certainly don't KNOW much. Also; feel free to yell at me.
In addition: SHPONGLE
|
GoBlue!
Tool Rules - DBK
Registered: 10/27/02
Posts: 576
Loc: Ann Arbor, MI
Last seen: 20 years, 7 months
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Sclorch]
#1221730 - 01/15/03 02:40 PM (21 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I hear the following alot:
Prove that ___ doesn't exist/ didn't happen.
I think it was Evolving that was forced to drive that point home a few months back, but the problem has resurfaced. It's an issue with the Burden of Proof... who gets it? I for one think that the burden should be on the claimant (god that's so assholish of me, isn't it?)... I mean, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE THAT SOMETHING DOESN'T EXIST (OR DIDN'T HAPPEN)- if there is no evidence, then there can be no REAL investigation. I don't know how to make it any clearer. It's simple reasoning... it really is. I can't see how this point could even be perceived as being unreasonable.
Well, be sure to read the last paragraph of the following excerpt from a CNN article posted today (15 Jan 03):
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/15/sproject.irq.inspections/index.html
It says:
Quote:
"Iraq says it has abandoned its efforts to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons -- a declaration the United States has dismissed.
The chief U.N. weapons inspector, Hans Blix, told the U.N. Security Council last week that his teams had found no "smoking gun" in nearly two months of inspections but urged more "active cooperation" from Iraq.
"The fact that the inspectors have not yet come up with new evidence of Iraq's WMD program could be evidence, in and of itself, of Iraq's noncooperation," Rumsfeld said. "We do know that Iraq has designed its programs in a way that they can proceed in an environment of inspections and that they are skilled at denial and deception."
Rumsfeld said the United States and the United Nations have no obligation to prove that Iraq has continued efforts to develop nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Instead, he said, Iraq must prove that it has abandoned them."
I guess Bush wouldn't survive long in the Shroomery!!!
--------------------
Just stating my thoughts, not trying to offend
Edited by GoBlue! (01/15/03 02:56 PM)
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: GoBlue!]
#1221755 - 01/15/03 02:51 PM (21 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I guess Bush wouldn't survive long in the Shroomery!!!
So much for the minds of politicians and bureaucrats. I keep asking why none of the major new media point out this fallacious reasoning.
--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
|
David_Scape
Anti Genius
Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 878
Loc: U.S. of muthafuckin A.
Last seen: 14 years, 10 months
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Evolving]
#1221796 - 01/15/03 03:10 PM (21 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
They will when the internet is used like the tv and EVERYONE has there own messageboard collective like the shroomery to hook-up to. That's for damn sure. Damnit.
|
GoBlue!
Tool Rules - DBK
Registered: 10/27/02
Posts: 576
Loc: Ann Arbor, MI
Last seen: 20 years, 7 months
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Evolving]
#1221811 - 01/15/03 03:22 PM (21 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
So much for the minds of politicians and bureaucrats. I keep asking why none of the major new media point out this fallacious reasoning.
Because it would be unpatriotic? Bush has recommened that the nation uniformly support him so long as the world is in a crisis. Now is his chance to get things done that wouldn't possibly be supported otherwise, like the Patriot Act, or the INS roundup of non-registered Arab and Muslim men (sort of like the Jews in Germany???) Do you ever wonder if he is the one causing all of the world's crises so that we the people of the US will let him get away just about anything he pleases???
--------------------
Just stating my thoughts, not trying to offend
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
 Re: Burden of Proof [Re: GoBlue!]
#1221874 - 01/15/03 03:56 PM (21 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I guess Bush wouldn't survive long in the Shroomery!!!
Maybe if we take the ring back...
That pic's already been posted on the Shroomery (I'm pretty sure), but it makes me laugh... so I thought I'd post it again.
--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
GoBlue!
Tool Rules - DBK
Registered: 10/27/02
Posts: 576
Loc: Ann Arbor, MI
Last seen: 20 years, 7 months
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Sclorch]
#1221879 - 01/15/03 04:03 PM (21 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
HAHA! NOW THAT'S FUNNY!!!
--------------------
Just stating my thoughts, not trying to offend
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Sclorch]
#1221913 - 01/15/03 04:23 PM (21 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
The ring must be destroyed. Such power, even in the hands of the kindest of creatures such as Hobbits, will eventually seduce one towards evil. We must make sure that no one ever gains as much power as Bush ever again.
--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: GoBlue!]
#1224555 - 01/16/03 05:22 PM (21 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
From GoBlue's quote: Rumsfeld said the United States and the United Nations have no obligation to prove that Iraq has continued efforts to develop nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Instead, he said, Iraq must prove that it has abandoned them."
While this looks somewhat fallacious, I think it is better phrased here (and thus not fallacious):
In early December, inspectors reported locating a dozen artillery shells filled with deadly mustard gas. But that finding was not a surprise. The shells were discovered by inspectors in the 1990s and tagged for destruction. That round of inspections was halted, and inspectors left Iraq because they were unable to get access to many suspected weapons sites. Part of the job of the UNMOVIC inspectors is to account for all banned weapons identified earlier.
Inspectors complained Thursday, as in the past, that Iraq has failed to provide evidence of action it says it took to destroy stocks of banned weapons after previous U.N. teams left in 1998. (fromthis article)
--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 all )
OrgoneConclusion
Icelander
nice1
Anonymous
Droz
