Burden of Proof

  • 18 Replies
  • 3527 Views
?

burt

  • 849
Burden of Proof
« on: July 01, 2012, 02:20:20 PM »
Q. Isn't the burden of proof on you to prove it?

A. No. You're the one claiming that NASA can send men to the moon, robots to mars, and space ships into the solar system. We're not claiming those things.

=Burt’s Answer: Red-herring, the thing that is being claimed is that the earth is flat. And anyway science proceeds by falsification.=

A fundamental tenant to the Zetetic philosophy is to search, or examine; to proceed only by inquiry; to take nothing for granted, but to trace phenomena to their immediate and demonstrable causes. Zeticism is a philosophy of skepticism against the fantastic and unobservable.

You're the one making all of these fantastic claims. You're the one claiming that space ships exist, government contractors can land man on the moon, send robots to mars, and that we can do all of these amazing never before done things.
 
=Burt’s Answer.  These things are plausible under the spherical earth theory (oh, dear “claims” really?) which has stood the test of scientists for well over a hundred years.=

The burden is on you to prove these things to us. You're the one making the claim. The simplest explanation is that NASA really can't do all of that stuff.
 
=Burt’s Answer: Red-herring, see above. Plus that nasa “can’t do all of that stuff” is not actually as simple claim as it seems (because you have to bring in the help of an unfalsifiable conspiracy theory, occams razor, my friend; NASA can do 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?

=Burt’s Answer: Actually FET is not that simple, it actually has many counter-intuitive notions, like: the earth is uniquely flat, compared to all over celestial objects, this one glaring anomaly needs to be explained. Where are the anomalies in the Spherical Earth Theory?=

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 skeptics to prove that ghosts *don't* exist?

=Burt’s Answer: like you say “the burden of proof is on the claimant” and the thing being claimed is that the earth is flat=

Another example - A company called Moller 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 without evidence that the Sky Car is working and ready to be mass produced if only they got a few more big investments. 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?

The burden of proof is always on the claimant and never on the skeptic.

=Burt’s answer: The fact is, if you are just a s(c)eptic, why does it matter that the earth is flat? Even if the spherical earth theory is wrong , that does not make the flat earth theory correct.

In this case I would be the s(c)eptic.=

“The burden of proof is on you.”

=Burt’s Answer: Exactly wrong – The burden of proof is always on the claimant. Not on “you”=
« Last Edit: July 01, 2012, 02:25:48 PM by burt »

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #1 on: July 02, 2012, 01:04:46 PM »
I agree with you on many points.  However, even if I granted you all your points, a lack of proof for FE does not prove a round earth.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39853
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #2 on: July 02, 2012, 01:08:01 PM »
I agree with you on many points.  However, even if I granted you all your points, a lack of proof for FE does not prove a round earth.

Likewise, a lack of proof for RE does not prove a flat earth.
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.

Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #3 on: July 02, 2012, 02:45:45 PM »
I agree with you on many points.  However, even if I granted you all your points, a lack of proof for FE does not prove a round earth.

Likewise, a lack of proof for RE does not prove a flat earth.
I agree with you on many points.  However, even if I granted you all your points, a lack of proof for FE does not prove a round earth.

I guess we're all in agreement then.

So, then we look at the proof for both sides..

None for FET
Hundreds for RET

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39853
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #4 on: July 02, 2012, 03:00:50 PM »
I agree with you on many points.  However, even if I granted you all your points, a lack of proof for FE does not prove a round earth.

Likewise, a lack of proof for RE does not prove a flat earth.
I agree with you on many points.  However, even if I granted you all your points, a lack of proof for FE does not prove a round earth.

I guess we're all in agreement then.

So, then we look at the proof for both sides..

None for FET
Hundreds for RET

I don't think that's what he said or meant.
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.

Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #5 on: July 05, 2012, 01:50:36 PM »
I agree with you on many points.  However, even if I granted you all your points, a lack of proof for FE does not prove a round earth.

Does it mean you haven't decided yet?
Life is a big trick.

?

burt

  • 849
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #6 on: July 06, 2012, 07:27:52 PM »
I agree with you on many points.  However, even if I granted you all your points, a lack of proof for FE does not prove a round earth.

That is just a logical corrolary of my quote:


=Burt’s answer: The fact is, if you are just a s(c)eptic, why does it matter that the earth is flat? Even if the spherical earth theory is wrong , that does not make the flat earth theory correct.



You should take me seriously when I claim a logical proposition, I really mean it; no theory is logically proven from the falsification of another theory, but it certainly limits the amount of theoretical contenders (aka "corrobaration" as distinct from "proof") and, like I said earliar in this topic, science, in my view, proceeds by falsification.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2012, 07:31:13 PM by burt »

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #7 on: July 06, 2012, 09:32:03 PM »
I agree with you on many points.  However, even if I granted you all your points, a lack of proof for FE does not prove a round earth.

Does it mean you haven't decided yet?

No, the earth clearly appears flat, not round. This obvervation has been, is being, and will be reached by every human on nearly every day of their lives. It is staggeringly more support for a flat-earth theory than the paltry excuses for a round earth.

Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #8 on: July 07, 2012, 03:24:53 AM »
I agree with you on many points.  However, even if I granted you all your points, a lack of proof for FE does not prove a round earth.

Does it mean you haven't decided yet?

No, the earth clearly appears flat, not round. This obvervation has been, is being, and will be reached by every human on nearly every day of their lives. It is staggeringly more support for a flat-earth theory than the paltry excuses for a round earth.

Could FEers stop once for all to use this all-time stupid argument: it looks flat therfore it is?
It has been demonstrated countless times that it is a wrong idea. It doesn't deserve you and proves that you have no scientific approach whatsoever.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

?

BoatswainsMate

  • 675
  • You just been Tom Bishop'ed
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #9 on: July 07, 2012, 06:13:18 AM »
I would love for that argument to stop. The problem is that Rushy would not be able to argue anything anymore if that where to happen hahaha

Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #10 on: July 07, 2012, 06:16:08 AM »
I agree with you on many points.  However, even if I granted you all your points, a lack of proof for FE does not prove a round earth.

Does it mean you haven't decided yet?

No, the earth clearly appears flat, not round. This obvervation has been, is being, and will be reached by every human on nearly every day of their lives. It is staggeringly more support for a flat-earth theory than the paltry excuses for a round earth.

About observation:



Tell me, does it turn left or right? You can't trust your eyes/brain.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39853
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #11 on: July 07, 2012, 08:20:32 AM »
No, the earth clearly appears flat, not round.

You do realize that this observation does not conflict with RET, don't you?
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.

Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #12 on: July 07, 2012, 08:38:19 AM »
It doesn't even llok flat: with all the hills, mountains, valleys, slopes and building, it never looks flat.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

?

burt

  • 849
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #13 on: July 07, 2012, 10:12:07 AM »
I posted this to get a conversation going, not about the proof for or against either theory, but to get a conversation going about Tom Bishop's approach to, or advocation (which he put in the FETWiki) of the burden of proof.

this currently digressed argument about observation has been done many times over, please can you do it elsewhere, and please, any anti-FETer's, don't get annoyed by it, you are clearly not going to change FETer's mind.

?

burt

  • 849
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #14 on: July 07, 2012, 10:14:23 AM »
I'm sorry if my post seems like I'm memberating, it won't happen again. I really wanted to get a different discussion going from all the rest, I guess I failed in my endeavor.

Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #15 on: July 07, 2012, 10:19:47 AM »
Burden of proof is too much to ask for FEers.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

mathsman

  • 487
  • one of the lads
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #16 on: July 07, 2012, 02:58:13 PM »
No, the earth clearly appears flat, not round. This obvervation has been, is being, and will be reached by every human on nearly every day of their lives. It is staggeringly more support for a flat-earth theory than the paltry excuses for a round earth.

The earth is not flat at Hoylake.

Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #17 on: July 07, 2012, 07:36:53 PM »
No, the earth clearly appears flat, not round. This obvervation has been, is being, and will be reached by every human on nearly every day of their lives. It is staggeringly more support for a flat-earth theory than the paltry excuses for a round earth.

The earth is not flat at Hoylake.

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you meant by that. Were you being literal or sarcastic? Pictures appear to show that it is, so I got confused

By the way, are you from a European country? "Maths" isn't used as commonly in the Americas (as far as I know)

*

mathsman

  • 487
  • one of the lads
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #18 on: July 09, 2012, 12:15:52 AM »
No, the earth clearly appears flat, not round. This obvervation has been, is being, and will be reached by every human on nearly every day of their lives. It is staggeringly more support for a flat-earth theory than the paltry excuses for a round earth.

The earth is not flat at Hoylake.

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you meant by that. Were you being literal or sarcastic? Pictures appear to show that it is, so I got confused

By the way, are you from a European country? "Maths" isn't used as commonly in the Americas (as far as I know)

Please see the Hoylake windfarms thread. At Hoylake I zetetically confirmed that the earth is not flat there.

Since Mathematics is a plural its abbreviation should be plural hence 'Maths'.

Besides, a math ith a Roman Catholic thervith.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2012, 03:39:15 AM by mathsman »