The burden of proof

Penn · 29-04-2009 11:43am #1

Probably been done before, but what constitutes proof for you? Do you need proof to believe something? What makes the difference between believing a theory or disregarding it?

For me, proof is unbiased information from a reputable source. That being said however, I do not automatically require proof to believe in something. I only require proof when that something seems illogical to me.

I believe some things which most people would call crazy (Aliens). I don't believe some things which people have dedicated their lives to because they believe in it so much (9/11).

Regardless of what you believe, do you think that you should have to prove it to them, or do you think they should show you evidence to the contrary? Do you think they are wrong because they haven't researched it as much as you, or because they haven't researched it at all? Are they ignoring facts, or ignoring logic?

6th · 29-04-2009 12:03pm

A theory is just a theory though. If there was proof of something existing then it wouldnt be a theory.

I think (as a user) the demands for proof can get a bit much at times, discussion a theory or ideas can be fasinating.

If someone starts pushing it as fact then expect it to be challenged, and rightly so.

Penn · 29-04-2009 12:11pm

I agree completely. I think there probably is too much "Show me proof", "Ok, here!", "Thats not proof" etc on this board.

In a way, I agree with you about a theory not requiring proof to be a theory. But at the same time, surely the only way for people to have a discussion about a theory is for that theory to be possible, and for there to be some proof, not something that proves the theory, but something which shows what led you to come to your conclusions

robtri · 29-04-2009 12:25pm

Discussion on theories can be fascinating... but it has to have some basis in reality... which a lot of theories on this site don't have...
also they need to have some basis on facts....

6th · 29-04-2009 12:25pm

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

I agree completely. I think there probably is too much "Show me proof", "Ok, here!", "Thats not proof" etc on this board.

I know what you mean but from the other side then you get people who are claiming things as fact as opposed to discussing a theory.

In theory I could be Leo Dowling from FairCity. People from here have met me and know I am not but if I was to claim I was Leo then when people ask me for proof I should be able to provide that.

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

In a way, I agree with you about a theory not requiring proof to be a theory. But at the same time, surely the only way for people to have a discussion about a theory is for that theory to be possible, and for there to be some proof, not something that proves the theory, but something which shows what led you to come to your conclusions

For example the theory that an organisation suck as the NWO is fine, such a group could exist. Some people believe its not likely to the point where they wont even consider it, some people believe it does exist and wont discuss the possibility of it not existing.

If both sides could accept that its "theories" we are discussing then this forum would be a lot healthier.

Sofa_King Good · 29-04-2009 12:27pm

eveyday life is full of feelings and thoughts, however the way this forum has developed in my opinion any feeling or thoughts normal in everyday conversation and discussion are inconsequential here and need to be suppressed or ridiculed.

There is one poster here who more than most shares his thoughts and expressions rather than scientifically categorising points. This appears to me to aggravate some who seem to take it as an insult that they don't see the world through their eyes.

Key point here for me is that this is the conspiracy theories forum, not a commission or a court of law. Surely this should be a platform for people to discuss conpiracy theories how they wish with people with similar interests not ridiculed and hounded but free to develop their own ideas right or wrong.

I can't imagine but I guess that this would not be allowed in other sections of the forum that there are so many posters that are anti-everything the forum is supposed to be about.

Sofa_King Good · 29-04-2009 12:29pm

6th wrote: »

If both sides could accept that its "theories" we are discussing then this forum would be a lot healthier.

but 6th its not just theories it is conspiracy theories and from what I can see people are excepted to suffer the stigma without getting the leeway of it being a conspiracy theory.

6th · 29-04-2009 12:36pm

I take your point SKG and we've (the mods) are making sur epeople are more respectful, that goes 2 ways though.

Would you be happy with a forum hwere there were no questions asked? Where people accepted everything that was said?

Penn · 29-04-2009 12:44pm

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

but 6th its not just theories it is conspiracy theories and from what I can see people are excepted to suffer the stigma without getting the leeway of it being a conspiracy theory.

True, and I know I've been guilty of it myself in the past.

uncleoswald · 29-04-2009 12:52pm

From a personal point of view I read this forum as a piece of entertainment and its a frustration that I know some posters hold back their wild(er) theories as they know they will be asked for proof and they have zilch. But these are some of the most entertaining kind of posts, although I also realise the kind of damage letting reckless theories go unchecked can do.

I rarely post here but three times I've asked in 9/11 threads for CT's to lay out exactly what they think happened that day from A-Z by linking all the holes they find in the official story, no burden of proof neccessary, just what they feel happened and no one took me up on the offer. They prefer just to just pick random holes in the official story even if it doesn't make any kind of sense as a bigger picture. I guess they know that any alternative they come up with will have more holes in it then a hobo's undeawear.

Sofa_King Good · 29-04-2009 12:58pm

6th wrote: »

I take your point SKG and we've (the mods) are making sur epeople are more respectful, that goes 2 ways though.

Respect is preferable in any arena. And I have no problems with the modding, generally more praise tp be fair.

Except maybe you have the 2 active mods on a CT theory who don't as a rule "believe".

6th wrote: »

Would you be happy with a forum hwere there were no questions asked? Where people accepted everything that was said?

Course not. However, it gets to the point where you are expected to back up every letter of word of every sentence and it is still never a foundation enough for actual discussion, it turns into an agressive debate.

poster 1: This is my thoughts on xyz

poster 2: either

- you are wrong

. you are wrong because...

- back it up
- back next point up etc

all confrontational.

or to put it into a different random context

poster 1: I seen a good movie on the telly last night.

Poster 2: what was it called?

1: xyz

2: never heard of it. can you prove it exists

1: ehm okay, here is a review in the Herald
2: you honestly expect me to trust that crap. haven't you got a more repetable source?

1. no
2. so then i must be right.
by the way, how can even know you own a tv?
1. well I can't prove it.
2. well then i must be right. so will you now accept you did not see a movie last night good or otherwise?

Poster 3: kick in

Penn · 29-04-2009 1:01pm

I have recently been thinking (partly the reason I started this thread) that too much importance is put on proof, in the context of this being a CT forum. And I mean from both sides, CTs and Skeptics.

There are some things which can't be proven. For example, How did the hijackers take over the planes on 9/11? Can this even be answered? No one on the planes survived. No one can tell us what really happened. We can guess, but thats all we can do.

humanji · 29-04-2009 1:05pm

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Respect is preferable in any arena. And I have no problems with the modding, generally more praise tp be fair.

Except maybe you have the 2 active mods on a CT theory who don't as a rule "believe".

Course not. However, it gets to the point where you are expected to back up every letter of word of every sentence and it is still never a foundation enough for actual discussion, it turns into an agressive debate.

poster 1: This is my thoughts on xyz

poster 2: either

- you are wrong

. you are wrong because...

- back it up
- back next point up etc

all confrontational.

or to put it into a different random context

poster 1: I seen a good movie on the telly last night.

Poster 2: what was it called?

1: xyz

2: never heard of it. can you prove it exists

1: ehm okay, here is a review in the Herald
2: you honestly expect me to trust that crap. haven't you got a more repetable source?

1. no
2. so then i must be right.
by the way, how can even know you own a tv?
1. well I can't prove it.
2. well then i must be right. so will you now accept you did not see a movie last night good or otherwise?

Poster 3: kick in

You're painting the original poster as a calm and reasoning person and the second poster as the combative one. In reality, they can both be just as combative. There aren't many threads that start with "I have an opinion on X, does anybody what to talk about it and see if it's true or false?". The majority of threads start by declaring that something is true so it's already a combative stance, in effect delcaring that anyone who disagrees is wrong.

briktop · 29-04-2009 2:14pm

no, thats just the way you react to them Humanji
you dont have to react that way

6th · 29-04-2009 2:14pm

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Except maybe you have the 2 active mods on a CT theory who don't as a rule "believe".

As a mod it doesnt matter if I believe or not but from a purely user point of view I have to say I have some pretty far out there ideas and beliefs. If I was to swing either way as a user I'd say it would be as a believer and anyone familiar with my posts in forums like Paranormal would know that.

I have to stay neutral, even though I've had more run-ins with the skeptics on Boards than most!

meglome · 29-04-2009 2:49pm

humanji wrote: »

You're painting the original poster as a calm and reasoning person and the second poster as the combative one. In reality, they can both be just as combative. There aren't many threads that start with "I have an opinion on X, does anybody what to talk about it and see if it's true or false?". The majority of threads start by declaring that something is true so it's already a combative stance, in effect delcaring that anyone who disagrees is wrong.

And the ones that start with the poster asking what people think usually by post five the OP has openly come out and shown they weren't really asking in the first place.

It has been said in here that extraordinary claims should need extraordinary evidence. Now there's truth in that statement but personally I'm a realist, this is just an internet discussion board and we're not generally experts in what we're talking about. Nor were we there on the day or in reality do we have the inside track. So I'll settle for some evidence, I'll settle for a consistent story, I'll settle for logic. Unfortunately it's pretty common to not even see any of that.

Believe it or not I appreciate this is a conspiracy theory forum but as I've said repeatedly this doesn't also make it the fantasy forum. So if you had a dream the night before then say you had a dream the night before and get a discussion going about it. But don't state it as fact when you have nothing to back it up. Really people a theory should be based in some provable fact.

humanji · 29-04-2009 2:57pm

briktop wrote:

no, thats just the way you react to them Humanji
you dont have to react that way

I don't get what you're trying to say there.

My point is that Sofa_King Good's post paints one side badly, when in reality both sides are as bad as each other.

The burden of proof lies on the shoulders of the person who makes a claim, be it someone claiming the NWO are behind 9/11 or someone claiming Lee Harvey Oswald the only one involved in the shooting of JFK.

And the thing is, it doesn't even have to be concrete evidence proving a conspiracy to be true. Anything that leads you to believe in a theory can be offered, but don't be shocked if someone points out flaws in it. Take it as constructive criticism and move on to explore oter avenues.

King Mob · 29-04-2009 3:11pm

It's not so much proof as just evidence and reasoning.

For example a conspiracy theory goes like this for example "A is true and B is true, therefore C and D must be true."

It would seem to be a reasonable theory, however A and B are not necessarily true.
Sometimes a CT would jump form D to Z and none of the points are true.

A theory really has to be supported by something to be called a theory otherwise it's just fiction.

marco_polo · 29-04-2009 3:30pm

King Mob wrote: »

It's not so much proof as just evidence and reasoning.

For example a conspiracy theory goes like this for example "A is true and B is true, therefore C and D must be true."

It would seem to be a reasonable theory, however A and B are not necessarily true.
Sometimes a CT would jump form D to Z and none of the points are true.

A theory really has to be supported by something to be called a theory otherwise it's just fiction.

I would agree, at what point do you call stop, for me that line is someway short of the NWO causing earthquakes as part of an H1N1 plot.

I just find modern conspiracies so boring and unimagnative compared to the good old day like the Moon Landings and JFK. Like a bad Steven Segal film there seems to be a very derivative and basic plot.

Stage 1: NWO
Stage 2: ?*
Stage 3: Profit

* = Bioweapons, Earthquake, Financial crisis, Chip Implants.

jonbravo · 29-04-2009 3:32pm

i believe in the philosophy of science, and i believe in a lot of CT's.

This rule in the philosophy of science, which is vital importance in the philosophy of science....
The rule....a plurality [of reasons] should not be posited without necessity ,or it is vain to do so with more what can be done with less-implies that the number of causes or explanations needed to account for the behaviour of a phenomenon should prefer the simplest explanation to fit the facts.the rule has been interpreted in modern times to mean that when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions ,the one that is simpler is the better
in other words the CT requiring the fewest assumptions and fitting the facts, is most likely to be correct.......

that kind... of sum's up what i think of someone giving me said proof!!, and the burden, for me to believe it..

King Mob · 29-04-2009 3:33pm

marco_polo wrote: »

I would agree, at what point do you call stop, for me that line is someway short of the NWO causing earthquakes as part of an H1N1 plot.

I just find modern conspiracies so boring and unimagnative compared to the good old day like the Moon Landings and JFK. Like a bad Steven Segal film there seems to be a very derivative and basic plot.

Stage 1: NWO
Stage 2: ?*
Stage 3: Profit

* = Bioweapons, Earthquake, Financial crisis, Chip Implants.

Earthquake machines are not imaginative?

Usually I call stop when you have to assume the government operates like a comicbook supervillain.

marco_polo · 29-04-2009 3:44pm

King Mob wrote: »

Earthquake machines are not imaginative?

Touché!

Usually I call stop when you have to assume the government operates like a comicbook supervillain.

+1

bonkey · 29-04-2009 4:48pm

I don't have time to write a detailed post right now, but I'd make the following observation...

The question of what constitutes the burden of proof for any claim should be considered seperately to the question of what evidence has led someone to a conclusion that they hold or believe to be possible.

This thread appears to have started asking the former, and has quickly turned into a discussion about the latter.

I suspect that the (blurred) distinction between proof and evidence is what is really the issue.

All too often, the terms are used interchangeably, or simply misused.

King Mob · 29-04-2009 5:00pm

I've learned that pure proof is only possible in mathematics and pure logic.

Colloquially proof and evidence are pretty much interchangeable.

For example you claim that Bush said X, you then provide unedited video of Bush saying X. That would be, for all intents and purposes, proof.

Sofa_King Good · 29-04-2009 6:28pm

King Mob wrote: »

"A is true and B is true, therefore C and D must be true."

It would seem to be a reasonable theory, however A and B are not necessarily true.

I have never, ever seen you adhere to this!!

Sofa_King Good · 29-04-2009 6:40pm

I can only speak for myself here but I am not out to change the world or anyone else for that matter. Surely everything that is said here has to be taken with a pinch of salt.

There are many things said here that I would find bizarre, comical, and to be honest sometimes even unsettling that people could believe such a thing and in 700 hundred posts not once have I used what anyones personal CT beliefs to mock or insult just because of what they believe.

It seems to me the best I could compare this forum too is a piss-poor amateur stand-up comedy open night.

Some CT'rs put their kneck on the line and get up on stage. Some bottle it, though they'd like to have a say but fear the impending ridicule and stay blended in the crowd.

Meanwhile, the majority in the crowd aren't interested in comedy anyway. They have come just to laugh and point and generally to makes themselves feel superior. So they heckle and heckle, sometimes in packs, sometimes not until they wannabe comedian gives up and there are no more jokes anymore.

Penn · 29-04-2009 6:49pm

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

I can only speak for myself here but I am not out to change the world or anyone else for that matter. Surely everything that is said here has to be taken with a pinch of salt.

There are many things said here that I would find bizarre, comical, and to be honest sometimes even unsettling that people could believe such a thing and in 700 hundred posts not once have I used what anyones personal CT beliefs to mock or insult just because of what they believe.

It seems to me the best I could compare this forum too is a piss-poor amateur stand-up comedy open night.

Some CT'rs put their kneck on the line and get up on stage. Some bottle it, though they'd like to have a say but fear the impending ridicule and stay blended in the crowd.

Meanwhile, the majority in the crowd aren't interested in comedy anyway. They have come just to laugh and point and generally to makes themselves feel superior. So they heckle and heckle, sometimes in packs, sometimes not until they wannabe comedian gives up and there are no more jokes anymore.

.....and vice versa.

Sofa_King Good · 29-04-2009 7:19pm

Paddy>> meaning?

You see it's not even an uphill struggle it genuinely pissing against the wind arguing against the established and proven position when it comes down to a question purely of proof.

Opinions and thoughts are rendered worthless, there is no grey area and the counter argumenter can stay comfortably on the fence and dismiss.

meglome · 29-04-2009 8:16pm

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

I can only speak for myself here but I am not out to change the world or anyone else for that matter. Surely everything that is said here has to be taken with a pinch of salt.

There are many things said here that I would find bizarre, comical, and to be honest sometimes even unsettling that people could believe such a thing and in 700 hundred posts not once have I used what anyones personal CT beliefs to mock or insult just because of what they believe.

It seems to me the best I could compare this forum too is a piss-poor amateur stand-up comedy open night.

Some CT'rs put their kneck on the line and get up on stage. Some bottle it, though they'd like to have a say but fear the impending ridicule and stay blended in the crowd.

Meanwhile, the majority in the crowd aren't interested in comedy anyway. They have come just to laugh and point and generally to makes themselves feel superior. So they heckle and heckle, sometimes in packs, sometimes not until they wannabe comedian gives up and there are no more jokes anymore.

SKG I take your point. However time and time again someone posts a video or link or opinion without any critical thinking whatsoever. Surely if all the 'truth seekers' out there were really interested in truth they'd first question what there were posting. I don't get any fun or enjoyment out of showing the obvious flaws in what someone is saying, i really don't. But I enjoy the discussion so I make my points.

It's weird really. What should be happening in an ideal world is that people making extraordinary claims would provide extraordinary evidence. But what actually happens is people making extraordinary claims provide basically no proof, or just the 'bigger picture' as proof.

Worse than that many are completely dismissive of any proof that has has any connection with an 'official' source but will accept some random bloke on the internet as proof without question. (Of course the 'official version' is okay when it can be fit into the CT but that's another story). I use the same standard of proof for all the stuff I read and watch no matter where it came from, it's a real pity some others wouldn't do the same.

And on your comedy analogy... Every comedy performer stands up on stage and expects they will be heckled. They learn that once they open themselves up on stage may get a critical response. If their jokes are not up to scratch or whatever. The response you seem to be looking for is what you would get at a Star Trek convention while talking about how great Star Trek is.

Penn · 29-04-2009 8:17pm

I'm not saying that what you said was incorrect, I just meant that the same can be said for skeptics. I feel like there are times when I don't want to post my opinion because I'll be told by the CTs that I'm a sheeple, I watch too much news, I'm ignorant for not believing in an NWO-type faction etc. So the analogy of a CT doing stand-up while the skeptics heckle them in order to feel superior can work the other way round too. I'm not saying its a 50/50 split, but it does happen

I don't post in many of the topics here. As I said before, I only started coming to this board because of a discussion about WTC7, which I felt I could contribute to as I know a bit about steel frame buildings, so thought I might be able to give an impartial view. But since then I have been called a sheeple. I have been called ignorant. I have been called 'blind to the world around me' or something like that. I have had many patronising digs aimed at me followed with a

.

So like I said, vice versa.

I can understand what you mean about trying to convey a view which isn't a general established view, and can only sympathise. But with respect, this is a CT forum, so anybody here either believes in CTs, or wants to discuss the possibility of CTs. I really doubt any skeptic comes here just to continuously go "You're wrong!", because believe me, its not fun. Its incredibly frustrating. I think I have seen instances where Person 1 says something, Person 2 argues it, Person 1 says that it was only their own opinion, and Person 2 still continues to argue the point, which I think is wrong.

Opinions matter. Proof matters. But they don't always have to go hand in hand.

bonkey · 29-04-2009 9:38pm

King Mob wrote: »

Colloquially proof and evidence are pretty much interchangeable.

I would strongly disagree. Coloquially, they are often interchanged...which is where the root of the problem lies. They are not interchangeable.

For example you claim that Bush said X, you then provide unedited video of Bush saying X. That would be, for all intents and purposes, proof.

That would be a case where sufficient evidence was provided that the matter could be considered proven.

Sufficient evidence can, therefore, be considered to be equivalent to proof.

The burden of proof

Comments