Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Cannabis Seeds Zamnesia
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  [ show all ]
Burden of Proof
    #1109083 -

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...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Sclorch]
    #1109101 -

"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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Sclorch]
    #1109135 -

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... :frown:
 


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Swami]
    #1109144 -

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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Sclorch]
    #1109168 -

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 :smile: 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)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: GazzBut]
    #1109174 -

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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Strumpling]
    #1109180 -

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)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Swami]
    #1109203 -

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  :grin: 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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: GazzBut]
    #1109242 -

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)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Phred]
    #1109275 -

Please reread what I have written without pre judging and then come back to me.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: GazzBut]
    #1109280 -

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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Sclorch]
    #1109564 -

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)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Phred]
    #1109573 -

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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Sclorch]
    #1109630 -

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 :wink:WR


--------------------
To old for this place

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Sclorch]
    #1109788 -

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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: whiterasta]
    #1109809 -

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.

:grin:

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. :wink: 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: whiterasta]
    #1109825 -

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...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Evolving]
    #1109864 -

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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: ]
    #1109938 -

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". :blush:
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. :grin:
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 :wink:
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 :tongue: 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 :wink: It is the fact we all share the same basic sensorium that we agree on "reality" at all :grin:WR 


--------------------
To old for this place

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Sclorch]
    #1109943 -

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  :grin:), 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 :smirk:)
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)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* (Some) Physicists are as bad as religious fundamentalists
( 1 2 all )		 OrgoneConclusion 2,668 22 01/12/09 08:57 PM
by Mr. Mushrooms
* Newton's dark secrets Icelander 981 8 11/16/05 02:22 PM
by Ped
* Proof
( 1 2 all )		 nice1 1,672 34 10/05/09 12:27 PM
by learningtofly
* Negative Proof
( 1 2 3 all )		 OrgoneConclusion 2,890 57 12/24/08 02:14 AM
by deranger
* Newton's self reflection OrgoneConclusion 514 8 12/18/10 10:10 PM
by MarkostheGnostic
* Subatomic physics
( 1 2 all )		 Anonymous 2,436 24 10/23/02 02:26 PM
by trendal
* Subatomic frequencies. Droz 1,492 9 02/08/05 09:14 AM
by gnrm23
* Burden of Proof OrgoneConclusion 844 13 03/05/08 08:59 PM
by backfromthedead

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
8,156 topic views. 1 members, 31 guests and 24 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.029 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 16 queries.