Burden of Proof

The premise of burden of proof is really an old topic that most people will detest revisiting, but I plan to anyways. Perhaps approaching the question differently would help explain why we ask what we ask in simplistic proof form.

A.
Point 1: It is illogical to arrive at a conclusion without evidence to support the conclusion.
Point 2: You have come to a conclusion of a Flat Earth.
Point 3: If you use logic and reasoning you must have evidence.

I can see no reason why such evidence can't readily be shared with us, under such premises. I do not believe FE'rs are correct in suggesting the public supported and common view should disprove every deviant view, but that argument aside, is it a lack of evidence or laziness on your behalf that prevents FE'ers from presenting the reasons they side with FE?

B. This simplified proof also begs questions with 'the conspiracy'. You believe in it yet readily admit to not having witnessed a shred of evidence for it. The only reply I have ever seen suggests the conspiracy because it makes sense with FE. If this is the case, the logical structure is incomplete due to its dependence on part A of my post. The only other alternatives I see is that the conspiracy is purely faith-based or logic was once again again abandoned.

Even if you don't believe FE needs to prove itself, there is no reason not to satisfy the people asking for proof. I await your response.

Well said!

The lack of proof is proof of the conspiracy itself - therefore it is self evident and requires no proof.

Starting with the idea of the Earth being flat, logically, a conspiracy must exist. Now the reasons for concluding or believing in a flat Earth are not common, and are not all logical.

Even if you don't believe FE needs to prove itself, there is no reason not to satisfy the people asking for proof.

Well, there are always reasons.

Well said!

Seconded.

The lack of proof is proof of the conspiracy itself - therefore it is self evident and requires no proof.

I see evidence every day which suggests a Flat Earth.

The burden of proof is on you to prove your claim of a world-model beyond human experience.

I see evidence every day which suggests a Flat Earth.

Is this you looking out your window again?

Can you provide some other proof?

B. This simplified proof also begs questions with 'the conspiracy'. You believe in it yet readily admit to not having witnessed a shred of evidence for it. The only reply I have ever seen suggests the conspiracy because it makes sense with FE. If this is the case, the logical structure is incomplete due to its dependence on part A of my post. The only other alternatives I see is that the conspiracy is purely faith-based or logic was once again again abandoned.

What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100,000 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the cosmos, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robots to mars; or is the simplest explanation that they really can't do all of that stuff?

You're the one making the claim here. You're the one claiming that these technologies exist and that NASA can explore space. All of your claims are beyond human experience.

The burden is on YOU and YOU alone to prove that these technologies exist and that NASA can reach orbit, blast past escape velocity, and explore the moons and planets. It's not our responsibility to disprove any of that stuff. It's impossible to prove a negative.

You're the one making all of these claims. You're the one claiming that satellites exist, government contractors can send 100,000 tons of matter straight upwards at 7 miles a second, that we can do all of these amazing never before done things.

The burden of you is to prove these things to us. You're the one making the claim. We're not. The simplest explanation is that NASA really can't do all of that stuff.

If two people are having a debate, should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who make the most complicated claim, or should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who makes the simplest and easily observable claim?

In a discussion on the existence of ghosts should the burden of proof be on the group mumbling "just because you can't see something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist," or should the burden of proof be on everyone else to prove that ghosts *don't* exist?

A company called Mollar International claims to have invented a flying car with safety comparable to a land vehicle, an outstanding performance of a 400 mile range, and sophisticated never before seen computer control. They claim that the Sky Car is ready to be mass produced if only they got a few more big investments. They've released a few videos of it hovering a short distance off the ground in test flights. Should the burden of proof be on the Moller proponents who are absolutely certain that all of Moller's claims are true, or should the burden of proof be on everyone else to prove that Moller's claims are *not* true?

So where's your proof for all of these sci-fi claims of yours?

I too am very interested, perhaps it would help, Tom, if you posted up where the evil Round earthers claim that 100,000 tonnes of matter is propelled straight up at extreme velocity.
It is then fairly straight forward to refute RE and claim a win for FE.

Quote

Point 1: It is illogical to arrive at a conclusion without evidence to support the conclusion.

I see evidence every day which suggests a Flat Earth.

ON TOPIC:
Tom, I can see that either you couldn't comprehend my original post or simply skimmed it and guessed what the general content was based on the title and previous discussions. Please reread it and try again.

NON ISSUE:
Covering your tangent, I must point out that the simplest explanation is they have invented rockets just as I and many others have witnessed. The inner workings of a conspiracy would be far more complicated and unnecessary when compared to the completion of a craft that can go higher than jets or airplanes.

although i am definately RE, i happen to agree with the FE'ers on this one, the burden of proof must be with us RE guys.

i mean in the real everday world the burden of proof would be on FE people but here and now online, we are the one on their boards and the accepted view here is FET so it is up to us to prove it wrong.

to be honest when i joined a few days back i was annoyed and angry at the easy get out answers but i've adjusted and have found some people to be great at scientific debates, specifically, osama and tom.

anyway come on RE guys get prooving

although i am definately RE, i happen to agree with the FE'ers on this one, the burden of proof must be with us RE guys.

i mean in the real everday world the burden of proof would be on FE people but here and now online, we are the one on their boards and the accepted view here is FET so it is up to us to prove it wrong.

to be honest when i joined a few days back i was annoyed and angry at the easy get out answers but i've adjusted and have found some people to be great at scientific debates, specifically, osama and tom.

anyway come on RE guys get prooving

Dude, sell out much? Ever hear of spell check? Proper capitalization? Analytical reasoning?

For Tom's main points, here's my view.

1)It should not be hard to prove that burning H and O2 together produce a lot of energy, and therefore lift.

2)The SS liftoff weight, including the boosters is on average@ 1,776,000 pounds. That converts to 833.5 tons. Unless he's citing an accumulative number that does not come close to the 100,000 tons Tom cites.

3)I can look up and reference NASA designs on both web search and patent search engines, and see them for myself.

I personally believe their validity. I don't feel the need to prove my opinions to people like Tom, and if he does not feel the need to prove his opinions to people like me, it comes to a standstill. There are no clear winners.

Ever hear of spell check?

Epic irony, considering how you spell your username.

don't know how to do the damn spellcheck thing online, anyway it isn't a case of selling out, it's having respect for people in their own place.

we are the ones on here saying they are wrong so it isnt up to them to prove, it's up to us

Quote from: AmatureAstronomer on September 04, 2008, 08:23:22 AM

Ever hear of spell check?

Epic irony, considering how you spell your username.

Better now? I'm sorry my choice of user name offended you Mr Osama fucking Bin Laden. My user name is spelled different ways in different parts of the world. I just forgot which part I was catering to. Also I'm a shitty speller.

Quote from: Algol on September 04, 2008, 06:16:41 AM

although i am definately RE, i happen to agree with the FE'ers on this one, the burden of proof must be with us RE guys.

i mean in the real everday world the burden of proof would be on FE people but here and now online, we are the one on their boards and the accepted view here is FET so it is up to us to prove it wrong.

to be honest when i joined a few days back i was annoyed and angry at the easy get out answers but i've adjusted and have found some people to be great at scientific debates, specifically, osama and tom.

anyway come on RE guys get prooving

Dude, sell out much? Ever hear of spell check? Proper capitalization? Analytical reasoning?

For Tom's main points, here's my view.

1)It should not be hard to prove that burning H and O2 together produce a lot of energy, and therefore lift.

2)The SS liftoff weight, including the boosters is on average@ 1,776,000 pounds. That converts to 833.5 tons. Unless he's citing an accumulative number that does not come close to the 100,000 tons Tom cites.

3)I can look up and reference NASA designs on both web search and patent search engines, and see them for myself.

I personally believe their validity. I don't feel the need to prove my opinions to people like Tom, and if he does not feel the need to prove his opinions to people like me, it comes to a standstill. There are no clear winners.

I believe that Tom's "100,000 tons" claim refers to the Saturn V moon shots (although 100 tons is probably closer to what actually got sent to the moon), not the space shuttle.

don't know how to do the damn spellcheck thing online, anyway it isn't a case of selling out, it's having respect for people in their own place.

we are the ones on here saying they are wrong so it isnt up to them to prove, it's up to us

Try Firefox. Real-time spell-checking is the dog's balls. You still have to mind your grammar though...

It's my opinion that it is up to them to show proof for/of their assertions for any theories they promote outside of conventional wisdom, since it's impossible to find proof for/of them elsewhere.

I believe that Tom's "100,000 tons" claim refers to the Saturn V moon shots (although 100 tons is probably closer to what actually got sent to the moon), not the space shuttle.

The Saturn V rocket weighed 6,699,000 lb's at launch, or @ 2,990 tons. That could not be what Tom was talking about when he said 100,000 tons..

Two thoughts.....

Firstly, Tom's claims of 100,000 tons being "unbelievable" are bogus unless he wants to provide more information.
Fact: FE believes that NASA launches something from those launch pads. How much does FE think those things weigh and how high does FE think those things get? What Tom is arguing is the difference between those numbers and the altitude RE claims. Oh and throw in RE's "belief" that the first 5 miles of lift are much harder than the 2nd 5 miles of lift. (Hmmm... perhaps that's the issue... FE doesn't believe this gets any easier.)

Secondly, this argument about burden of proof is kinda the cart before the horse because the way to judge whether the burden has been met relies on evidence that both parties can agree with. I have yet to see consistent answers from FE regarding what the evidence should be. They can't even agree whether boats should appear to sink on the horizon or not. This seems rather like agreeing to a duel and discussing how far apart the parties should be from each other before deciding on the weapons... "great we'll duel at 100 paces, now our choice of weapons? foils!"

Lastly, just to be picky, yes, I do believe that people invent "never before seen" technologies all the time. Kinda hard to invent "already been seen" technologies. The word most folks use in that case is "re-invent".

Until Tom shows me what he chose to reference when he cited a hundred thousand ton liftoff, I don't see anything that requires me to take his reference seriously. I don't doubt we can put 100,000 tons into orbit, I'm just disputing his assertion that it's already been attempted and that the recording of that attempt is questionable. It hasn't been attempted yet, but it will be soon enough. We'll be putting multiples of that figure into orbit someday.

Dumbed down, I think what singularity is saying is "you have proposed a theory that has little or no evidence. Therfore, you need to prove it, not us". He's right. It may be their forum, but they are proposing these theories to the rest of the world. We have already done so, and ours has been accepted. Now, you need to show yours is the more likely.

Dumbed down, I think what singularity is saying is "you have proposed a theory that has little or no evidence. Therfore, you need to prove it, not us". He's right. It may be their forum, but they are proposing these theories to the rest of the world. We have already done so, and ours has been accepted. Now, you need to show yours is the more likely.

really? care to explain what these theories are that you have proven?

What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100,000 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second,

Well how else are you going to invent something?  Someone has to make the first, never-before-seen product...you see, thats what inventing is.  Secondly, do you think rocket technology went from aincent Chinese fireworks straight to the Saturn V with no development in between?  Its a remakrably well documented evolution with plenty of mis-steps along the way.  Rocket power is conceptually probably the oldest, simplest, most basic form of propulsion possible...ever let go of a balloon?  You just made a rocket!  All thats been done over time by NASA and the myriad other developers, both private and public is to enhance the volatility of the propellant, the methods of controlling that propellant and scaling it way the hell up.

Did the automobile go from a non-existent thing (that everyone had seen before) and suddenly day one, BANG!  You've got a Lamborghini with a fully developed antilock brakes, a sophisticated anti-skid control system, a transmission that shifts itself and all wheel drive.  Amazing.

and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the cosmos, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robots to mars; or is the simplest explanation that they really can't do all of that stuff?

It is equally unreasonable that so many people can sit of their butts all day long and peck away at magic boxes to send messages around the planet to each other in a format that everyone can understand...yet here we all are doing exactly that.  

You're the one making the claim here. You're the one claiming that these technologies exist and that NASA can explore space. All of your claims are beyond human experience.

None of these things are beyond human experience.  You can go watch rockets launch with your own eyes and follow the trajectory yourself with a simple pair of binoculars or telescope.  Perhaps what you mean is that these things are beyond your experience.

The burden is on YOU and YOU alone to prove that these technologies exist and that NASA can reach orbit, blast past escape velocity, and explore the moons and planets. It's not our responsibility to disprove any of that stuff. It's impossible to prove a negative.

Its not hard to exceed escape velocity...you can do it for a moment on your own by jumping straight up in the air.  Maintaining that velocity is simply a matter of maintaining a stream of propellant between your CG and the earth's CG moving fast enough to push you in the opposite direction.  Its the exact same as jumping when you simplify it...just a matter of the scale and the type of propellany used.

You're the one making all of these claims. You're the one claiming that satellites exist, government contractors can send 100,000 tons of matter straight upwards at 7 miles a second, that we can do all of these amazing never before done things.

Near as I can figure, the heaviset every liftoff was one of the many Saturn V Apollo missions...somewhere slightly north of 7 million pounds, roughly 4000 tons.  Lots of mass there to be sure, but 100,000 tons?  Where did you get that figure from?  Thats slightly more than a fully loaded Nimitz-class nuclear aircraft carrier.  I cna find no claims of anyone moving that much matter into orbit in one shot...brings a whole new concept to the term "heavy lift vehicle".

The burden of you is to prove these things to us. You're the one making the claim. We're not. The simplest explanation is that NASA really can't do all of that stuff.

If two people are having a debate, should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who make the most complicated claim, or should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who makes the simplest and easily observable claim?

In a discussion on the existence of ghosts should the burden of proof be on the group mumbling "just because you can't see something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist," or should the burden of proof be on everyone else to prove that ghosts *don't* exist?

A company called Mollar International claims to have invented a flying car with safety comparable to a land vehicle, an outstanding performance of a 400 mile range, and sophisticated never before seen computer control. They claim that the Sky Car is ready to be mass produced if only they got a few more big investments. They've released a few videos of it hovering a short distance off the ground in test flights. Should the burden of proof be on the Moller proponents who are absolutely certain that all of Moller's claims are true, or should the burden of proof be on everyone else to prove that Moller's claims are *not* true?

I know what you mean...sounds like a scam to me...some time ago, another company burst out with equally outlandish claims that they could capture images of events as they happen and put them on paper for all to see.  I forget the name of that company.  Another company actualy made the claim that they could take an entire bank of vacuum tubes and replace a whole room's worth of them with one little tiny chip...crazy.

So where's your proof for all of these sci-fi claims of yours?

Look out your window, look on your desk, maybe on your wrist...consider your cell phone and all its remarkable capabilities.  My god man, open your eyes and your mind.

tl;dr in entirety.

Did you use the look out your window meme? Bad form man.

Flying cars will never be introduced in our lifetimes because extreme muslims could drive them into skyscrapers.

tl;dr in entirety.

Did you use the look out your window meme? Bad form man.

Flying cars will never be introduced in our lifetimes because extreme muslims could drive them into skyscrapers.

I don't know what a "meme" is, but I intentioanlly used "look out your window" since its one of Tom's favorite proofs of the flat earth.  In this case I'm suggesting that by looking out the window he can see things like cars, airplanes, telephone poles, maybe some people talking on cell phones...maybe even a rocket launch if he lives in the rihgt part of the world. 

Not sure why this would be bad form, but if you're not going to bother reading any of it, how can you critique it?  Its carved up into nice little point, counter-point sections...no wall of text, I used sentences and everything.

Quote

[/b]Point 1: It is illogical to arrive at a conclusion without evidence to support the conclusion.

I see evidence every day which suggests a Flat Earth.

The burden of proof is on you to prove your claim of a world-model beyond human experience.

Whoa whoa Tom you must have pressed the WRONG button or something there. The burdon of proof is ultamitly on the FErs because they're the ones claiming the Earth is flat, which is something scientificly impossible.

It amazes me that Tom uses the same archaic arguments over and over again to no avail yet still thinks he has the correct perception of reality on this subject.

I have proven him wrong numerous times on the subject of the conspiracy and why it is the worst conspiracy theory every created to explain a defiance of factual and intellectual integrity.

I just remember asking my close friend who has his doctorate in Astro Physics and has worked for NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, CIT's JPA Laborarotory and is an award winning author on subjects in the same field, to read the FAQ here and he came back to me laughing at how horrible the argument was and basically told me you cant debate with people who do not listen to reason.

I asked him to at least join at debate for fun and he refused to lower himself to the idiots like Tom on this board who dont know shit about Atro Physics and how it works in accordance with RE theory or should I say fact.

Now Tom will just play this off as appeal to authority but I am not appealing to authority to prove you wrong I am appealing to someone I personally know and respect in the field of Astro Physics who has more knowledge on the subject than anyone who posts here.

I can also attest to his character that he is not one that would ever be involved in such a conspiracy theory and does not work for NASA anymore so it would behoove him nothing to keep the lie going.  Believe it or not there is intellecual integrity in our educational system at such high levels that no one could possibly stop the nonsense of such a cover up from being unveiled.


I personally dont care if Tom lives with this head up his ass or not but to try and act like we have to prove shit to such a bullshit theory is laughable. Especially when the bottom line answer to the opposition is that of a conspiracy.

Mayhem, Shaydawg, you guys said that perfectly.

and i think the majority of you oh-so-smart people have missed the point of this site entirely.

The premise of burden of proof is really an old topic that most people will detest revisiting, but I plan to anyways. Perhaps approaching the question differently would help explain why we ask what we ask in simplistic proof form.

A.
Point 1: It is illogical to arrive at a conclusion without evidence to support the conclusion.
Point 2: You have come to a conclusion of a Flat Earth.
Point 3: If you use logic and reasoning you must have evidence.

I can see no reason why such evidence can't readily be shared with us, under such premises. I do not believe FE'rs are correct in suggesting the public supported and common view should disprove every deviant view, but that argument aside, is it a lack of evidence or laziness on your behalf that prevents FE'ers from presenting the reasons they side with FE?

B. This simplified proof also begs questions with 'the conspiracy'. You believe in it yet readily admit to not having witnessed a shred of evidence for it. The only reply I have ever seen suggests the conspiracy because it makes sense with FE. If this is the case, the logical structure is incomplete due to its dependence on part A of my post. The only other alternatives I see is that the conspiracy is purely faith-based or logic was once again again abandoned.

Even if you don't believe FE needs to prove itself, there is no reason not to satisfy the people asking for proof.

Tom, read the passage then read the bolded text. I'm still waiting.

Arguing for 5 or 10 pages would be more work than posting the steps FE'ers have obviously taken.

Saying all the NASA stuff was made up is foolish. It's like saying the CERN doesn't exist either nor the LHC.