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

Sporeworks
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!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  [ show all ]
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: falcon]
    #1114881 -

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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Murex]
    #1114888 -

In the future, I will read no more posts regarding my ego.  :smirk: 


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



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Evolving]
    #1115038 -

thank you


--------------------
Quote:
Rhaz said:
        I think consciousness is impersonal and the body as well but for the history and tendencies of the body/intelligence process, which are things about our being, the personal, but don't necessarily define our being.
 


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Swami]
    #1115123 -

.....but you will still write them.  :tongue:


--------------------
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?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Murex]
    #1117103 -

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...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Sclorch]
    #1117422 -

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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: ]
    #1117511 -

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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Swami]
    #1117594 -

Precisely!

What an image!

:grin: :grin: :grin: :grin:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Sclorch]
    #1152307 -

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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Strumpling]
    #1152769 -

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...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Strumpling]
    #1152828 -

Why should I try to make people believe in my God?

.....that's just too much work.  :tongue:


--------------------
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?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Sclorch]
    #1152847 -

6th edition, Sclorch :grin:


--------------------
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: Strumpling]
    #1152931 -

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! :smile:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: ]
    #1153005 -

Hey thanks man  :laugh:

"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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Sclorch]
    #1221730 -

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!!!  :wink:   


--------------------
:smile:  Just stating my thoughts, not trying to offend  :smile:

Edited by GoBlue! (01/15/03 02:56 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: GoBlue!]
    #1221755 -

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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Evolving]
    #1221796 -

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.
:cool: 


--------------------
focusing
Flow
The Enneagram

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Evolving]
    #1221811 -

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???


--------------------
:smile:  Just stating my thoughts, not trying to offend  :smile:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: GoBlue!]
    #1221874 -

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...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Burden of Proof [Re: Sclorch]
    #1221879 -

HAHA!  NOW THAT'S FUNNY!!!  :grin: 


--------------------
:smile:  Just stating my thoughts, not trying to offend  :smile:

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

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

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 2,666 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 2,886 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 2,429 24 10/23/02 02:26 PM
by trendal
* Subatomic frequencies. Droz 1,491 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
8,152 topic views. 1 members, 129 guests and 17 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 0.028 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 16 queries.