On the Burden of Proof

  • 41 Replies
  • 5315 Views
?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
On the Burden of Proof
« on: May 05, 2010, 07:52:16 AM »
FET believers will tell you that because their theory has always been the default, the burden is on the RE believers to provide proof of their claims. Now we will put aside for a moment the fact that FEers throw out all evidence that disproves them as "part of the conspiracy" and hit it from another angle.

FE was indeed how humans described their planet for quite a long period of time, but the theory was very simple, and did not include many of the 'enhancements' that are regularly discussed on this site. Starting in the 6th century BCE, evidence began to mount against it and RE slowly became generally accepted.

Now on to the heart of the issue. Modern FET as discussed here has a number of additions, such as the idea that NASA is a fraudulent organization perpetrating a massive cover-up, celestial gears, the moon is a bioluminescent organism, the ice wall, the UA, bendy light, the ability to fit a map of the world to readily available flight times, the list could go on and on. All of these and more are NEW ideas (forgive me if I'm wrong on some of these, I could easily find replacements for them).

I submit that the burden is indeed on FET believers to prove these new hypotheses.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

Catchpa

  • 1018
Re: On the Burden of Proof
« Reply #1 on: May 05, 2010, 08:07:24 AM »
This has been brought up many times before. The standard answer is always that this is their site, and we come here to disprove them. I'd agree with it if they had an actual consensus, but they don't and keep coming up with new stuff that have absolutely no basis. The only thing they agree on is that the earth is flat.

While this is their society and they can do with what they want, they will be met(and is met) with ridicule in all other societies, forums and the real world without a working consensus.
The conspiracy do train attack-birds

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: On the Burden of Proof
« Reply #2 on: May 05, 2010, 08:08:49 AM »
So they can follow the rules when it suits them, and ignore them when it doesn't. Brilliant!
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

Re: On the Burden of Proof
« Reply #3 on: May 05, 2010, 08:17:45 AM »
I have an analogy for exactly this.

If we suppose we're in an office building and one of the doors is locked, we can make a few guesses about what's inside it.  Perhaps staplers, papers, filing cabinets, etc.  Now let's say a person comes along and tells you there's a tiger in that room.  You've seen no evidence for his supposed roomtiger, and tell him this.  At the same time, he's seen no evidence for documents or office supplies.  Since the room is still locked, both claims are on level ground.

Now let's suppose somebody comes by and unlocks the door.  The room is found to have a few desks and common office supplies.  There is certainly no growling or scratching.  Your side is supported while his is invalidated.

From here, instead of conceding defeat, the roomtigerist begins making many more baseless claims to justify his position, like that the tiger is invisible ("we can't see it, so it MUST be invisible"), only affects things if it wants to affect them ("it's not affecting things now, which is evidence that it only affects things it wants to affect"), and that its growls can only be heard at certain times ("just listen, I've personally heard it a bunch of times and it definitely WASN'T the construction work across the street").  He goes on to pretend these assumptions are completely scientific and claim anyone with a contrary opinion is in on a large-scale conspiracy to further conceal the roomtiger--the existence of which he feels is obvious.

Is it up to you to provide evidence AGAINST it before believing otherwise?
Why can't the roomtigerist admit it's a regular office?

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: On the Burden of Proof
« Reply #4 on: May 05, 2010, 08:31:25 AM »
So they can follow the rules when it suits them, and ignore them when it doesn't. Brilliant!


What are you talking about? There's nothing in the rules about the burden of proof. I suggest you read them.


The point is simple: you're coming here to make a claim contradicting our beliefs, so the burden of proof is on you. We're not obligated to answer the criticisms of every RE'er who comes through.


Also, I'm moving this to Q&A.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: On the Burden of Proof
« Reply #5 on: May 05, 2010, 08:33:14 AM »
I was talking about the way the world works, not the rules of this site.

And this was not a question, it was pretty clearly debate.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

Re: On the Burden of Proof
« Reply #6 on: May 05, 2010, 08:36:47 AM »
By the FET idea of burdens of proof, if the we believe a person on this site appears to just be a troll (zeteticism, of course), then they are a troll until evidence comes up otherwise.  When evidence actually comes up, we can just continually move the goalposts and demand more.  I could therefore submit Lord Wilmore just trolled us and he'd never be able to demonstrate the contrary to our satisfaction.

It's quite a brilliant system.

Edit: spelling mistake.  zetetism --> zeteticism?

*

Catchpa

  • 1018
Re: On the Burden of Proof
« Reply #7 on: May 05, 2010, 08:39:58 AM »
By the FET idea of burdens of proof, if the we believe a person on this site appears to just be a troll (zetecism, of course), then they are a troll until evidence comes up otherwise.  When evidence actually comes up, we can just continually move the goalposts and demand more.  I could therefore submit Lord Wilmore just trolled us and he'd never be able to demonstrate the contrary to our satisfaction.

It's quite a brilliant system.

Well, it's their site. They can do whatever they please, no matter how freaking retarded the logic behind it is.
The conspiracy do train attack-birds

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: On the Burden of Proof
« Reply #8 on: May 05, 2010, 08:48:44 AM »
I personally have not seen any evidence that Tom Bishop is not flat, so that must be true also!
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42703
Re: On the Burden of Proof
« Reply #9 on: May 05, 2010, 09:00:04 AM »
This has been brought up many times before. The standard answer is always that this is their site, and we come here to disprove them. I'd agree with it if they had an actual consensus, but they don't and keep coming up with new stuff that have absolutely no basis. The only thing they agree on is that the earth is flat.

While this is their society and they can do with what they want, they will be met(and is met) with ridicule in all other societies, forums and the real world without a working consensus.

In a scientific debate context, both sides carry a BoP.  The burden may not be the same for both sides, but they still need to be able to support their arguments.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: On the Burden of Proof
« Reply #10 on: May 05, 2010, 09:07:35 AM »
I was talking about the way the world works, not the rules of this site.


I wasn't aware the world had rules regaridng the burden of proof either.


And this was not a question, it was pretty clearly debate.


Irrelevant. Read the board-specific rules in Flat Earth Debate.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

Re: On the Burden of Proof
« Reply #11 on: May 05, 2010, 09:10:04 AM »
I wasn't aware the world had rules regaridng the burden of proof either.

Ah, you're learning new things already.
Gentlemen, a new door has been opened.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: On the Burden of Proof
« Reply #12 on: May 05, 2010, 09:10:57 AM »
I wasn't aware the world had rules regaridng the burden of proof either.

Ah, you're learning new things already.
Gentlemen, a new door has been opened.


You know of world-governing rules about the burden of proof? Do tell.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

Re: On the Burden of Proof
« Reply #13 on: May 05, 2010, 09:12:47 AM »
And this was not a question, it was pretty clearly debate.


Irrelevant. Read the board-specific rules in Flat Earth Debate.
How was the OP going against the rules of Debate? I have not been able to see why this was moved.
Poor grammar is the internet equivalent of body odor.
My site.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: On the Burden of Proof
« Reply #14 on: May 05, 2010, 09:15:44 AM »
How was the OP going against the rules of Debate? I have not been able to see why this was moved.


This forum is for the debate and discussion of specific aspects of Flat Earth Theory only.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

Re: On the Burden of Proof
« Reply #15 on: May 05, 2010, 09:17:42 AM »
"The tiger is real."  <--Positive, FOR.
"The tiger is fake."  <--Positive, AGAINST.

"The tiger is not fake."  <--Negative, FOR.
"The tiger is not real."  <--Negative, AGAINST.

The "FOR" statements regarding the existence or explanation of a phenomenon bear the burden of providing evidence to back up their claims, regardless of if the claim is positive or negative.  Markjo is right that both sides in this case bear the burden of proof, and the REers have carried that torch time and time again.  FE, on the other hand, has no evidence and makes no accurate predictions.

Edit:  The standards of this site are, of course, different from the norm.

Re: On the Burden of Proof
« Reply #16 on: May 05, 2010, 03:18:29 PM »
How was the OP going against the rules of Debate? I have not been able to see why this was moved.


This forum is for the debate and discussion of specific aspects of Flat Earth Theory only.
Burden of Proof in regards to FET...?
Poor grammar is the internet equivalent of body odor.
My site.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: On the Burden of Proof
« Reply #17 on: May 05, 2010, 04:09:55 PM »
The debate about where the burden of proof lies (with RE'ers or FE'ers) is something separate and extraneous to FET itself. In any vent, if you wish to discuss this further, do so in S&C.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

?

flyingmonkey

  • 728
  • Troll trolling Trolls
Re: On the Burden of Proof
« Reply #18 on: May 05, 2010, 08:31:59 PM »
So how is that invisitiger, Wilmore?

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: On the Burden of Proof
« Reply #19 on: May 06, 2010, 01:51:40 AM »
So how is that invisitiger, Wilmore?


 ???
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10957
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: On the Burden of Proof
« Reply #20 on: May 06, 2010, 03:53:48 AM »
I demand that the OP be banned for name plagiarism.

Also,
invisitiger

What?
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: On the Burden of Proof
« Reply #21 on: May 06, 2010, 06:31:59 AM »
First off, my name is a character from South Park, and I had no idea there was someone here with your name. They are similar but stealing your name was not my intention.

Second, shall we steer back towards the topic of debate?

These theories are new (as compared to the well-established RET) so why do they not have to be proven as better explanations of natural phenomena than RE's predictions?
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

Re: On the Burden of Proof
« Reply #22 on: May 06, 2010, 10:33:17 AM »
Let it be noted: Wilmore and Douchebag ignore entire posts.

*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10957
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: On the Burden of Proof
« Reply #23 on: May 06, 2010, 10:38:46 AM »
Let it be noted: Wilmore and Douchebag ignore entire posts.

Only those devoid of content. Also, who are you?
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>

Re: On the Burden of Proof
« Reply #24 on: May 06, 2010, 10:46:06 AM »
Quote from: douchebag
Only those devoid of content.

How would you know that if you ignore them entirely?

*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10957
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: On the Burden of Proof
« Reply #25 on: May 06, 2010, 10:48:10 AM »
Quote from: douchebag
Only those devoid of content.

How would you know that if you ignore them entirely?

We still read them, then decide to ignore them.
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>

Re: On the Burden of Proof
« Reply #26 on: May 06, 2010, 10:56:15 AM »
We still read them...

Obviously not, considering didn't get the invisitiger reference.

I had an analogy earlier that points out the flaw in FET logic.  It's like they believe unquestioningly in a tiger no one has any evidence for, only to use a lack of evidence to support it.  "I don't see a tiger here, so obviously it must be invisible."  "I don't see the effects of a tiger like growling or scratching, so obviously it must only affect things if it chooses to."

The problem comes from creating extra assumptions merely to justify belief in something that's already been shown to have no evidence for it.

*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10957
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: On the Burden of Proof
« Reply #27 on: May 06, 2010, 11:14:52 AM »
I dunno, that sounds like a low-content post to me. And so was that one just now, but you directly addressed me so it'd be rude to ignore it.
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>

Re: On the Burden of Proof
« Reply #28 on: May 06, 2010, 11:24:54 AM »
I dunno, that sounds like a low-content post to me.

Me pointing out your confusion in regards to a point brought up just one page prior isn't low-content; it's directing you to what will clear your confusion.  You'll also notice (if you eventually choose to read it someday) that at the end of the post I ask two sincere questions about the burden of proof in the FE mindset, which is the topic at hand.

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: On the Burden of Proof
« Reply #29 on: May 06, 2010, 11:33:23 AM »
I think my thread is getting jacked here, the question is:

Quote
These theories are new (as compared to the well-established RET) so why do they not have to be proven as better explanations of natural phenomena than RE's predictions?
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.