apocalyptic predictions ...

davoxx

a nice article on apocalyptic predictions ...
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/08/ff_apocalypsenot/all/

the ct is based on the actual outcomes most apocalyptic predictions were profiteering/scaremongering designed to steer the general population one way or another ...

Channel Zero

davoxx is back! hooray!:D

edit: Most interesting article. Well worth a read.

Monty Burnz

davoxx wrote: »

the ct is based on the actual outcomes most apocalyptic predictions were profiteering/scaremongering designed to steer the general population one way or another ...

It's interesting to note that Christianity has been relying on apocalyptic predictions to shape our behaviour for the last 2000 years or so. Is Christianity another scam?

weisses

Monty Burnz wrote: »

It's interesting to note that Christianity has been relying on apocalyptic predictions to shape our behaviour for the last 2000 years or so. Is Christianity another scam?

No Christianity is using fear mongering to control the masses ... somehow people want to be controlled ..strange .... Governments are fine tuning that tactic in present day

Chazz Michael Michaels

weisses wrote: »

No Christianity is using fear mongering to control the masses ... somehow people want to be controlled ..strange .... Governments are fine tuning that tactic in present day

Nothing new about that. Propaganda is as old as the hills. Conspiracy theorists use exactly the same techniques.

weisses

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

Nothing new about that. Propaganda is as old as the hills.

So Conspiracy's are something real what's your problem with people who expose them ??

Chazz Michael Michaels

weisses wrote: »

So Conspiracy's are something real what's your problem with people who expose them ??

Because most of them are a load of piffle. It's a shame, because there is some truth in some of them, for example 9/11 does have something dodgy about it, it's just a shame that the CT message, the way lies and ill-researched "facts" and opinion get tacked on, and most importantly the way it's conveyed (sheeple, etc) means that few people will ever take it seriously.

Which is a shame, because there are some genuine questions to be answered.

weisses

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

Because most of them are a load of piffle. It's a shame, because there is some truth in some of them, for example 9/11 does have something dodgy about it, it's just a shame that the CT message, the way lies and ill-researched "facts" and opinion get tacked on, and most importantly the way it's conveyed (sheeple, etc) means that few people will ever take it seriously.

Which is a shame, because there are some genuine questions to be answered.

I fully agree with you there ...

davoxx

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

Because most of them are a load of piffle. It's a shame, because there is some truth in some of them, for example 9/11 does have something dodgy about it, it's just a shame that the CT message, the way lies and ill-researched "facts" and opinion get tacked on, and most importantly the way it's conveyed (sheeple, etc) means that few people will ever take it seriously.

Which is a shame, because there are some genuine questions to be answered.

that is true, though a lot of times it is misinformation deliberately placed to help reinforce a incorrect belief to distract from the truth if everyone is chasing the false lead, the real culprit can escape. this is apparent in the ct deniers 'evidence' too.

i think that a bit of analytical thinking is in order, i don't follow the official theory for the towers collapse, it seems to defy my understanding of physics and chemistry. i don't think people who believe the official explanation are sheeple, but i do believe that when certain people are presented with facts, they become defensive without understanding the facts.
this is clear in this forum where certain members were arguing with me on the NIST report, despite the fact that they had not even bothered to read it. those people are either reinforcing their uncertainties to themselves or people who want to trick those who want answers by providing false information.

there is still a call for proving the pancake theory: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/challenge.html
if it is so common and easy, why has it not been replicated?

i suppose the point is in relation to doomsday prophecies, is that people with no desire to research facts (which we are indoctrinated into at an early age with the small lies) believe that which we are told. how many people actually knew that iraq did not have wmd? how many cared? how many were just scared of the threat of wmds that they went along with it? and how many people now believe that iran will start a nuclear winter, even though north korea hasn't?

Monty Burnz

davoxx wrote: »

that is true, though a lot of times it is misinformation deliberately placed to help reinforce a incorrect belief to distract from the truth if everyone is chasing the false lead, the real culprit can escape. this is apparent in the ct deniers 'evidence' too.

Evidence is misleading?

davoxx

Monty Burnz wrote: »

It's interesting to note that Christianity has been relying on apocalyptic predictions to shape our behaviour for the last 2000 years or so. Is Christianity another scam?

yes. but it is not exclusive to christianity.

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/religion

Monty Burnz

davoxx wrote: »

yes. but it is not exclusive to christianity.

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/religion

I totally agree.

davoxx

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Evidence is misleading?

depends on who says it according to ct deniers and fans
depends on what it actually means accord to people who actually want to find the truth.

you've dismissed evidence based solely on the person who said it. you've supplied evidence based solely on who said it too. so yes, calling something evidence can be misleading ...

Monty Burnz

davoxx wrote: »

you've dismissed evidence based solely on the person who said it. you've supplied evidence based solely on who said it too. so yes, calling something evidence can be misleading ...

I didn't dismiss evidence, I dismissed opinion. Opinion is not evidence of anything, except itself.

That was the whole point I was making.

Torakx

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

Because most of them are a load of piffle. It's a shame, because there is some truth in some of them, for example 9/11 does have something dodgy about it, it's just a shame that the CT message, the way lies and ill-researched "facts" and opinion get tacked on, and most importantly the way it's conveyed (sheeple, etc) means that few people will ever take it seriously.

Which is a shame, because there are some genuine questions to be answered.

I think thats what Alex jones is always on about.
Cointelpro or something.
Basically what he is good at lol
What better way to discredit a majority of Ct's by controlling the movement and radicalizing it for the main stream to reject and others to take up an unworthy cause.
That leaves only a small few going in the right direction,which is easiier to manage.

Monty Burnz

Torakx wrote: »

I think thats what Alex jones is always on about.
Cointelpro or something.
Basically what he is good at lol
What better way to discredit a majority of Ct's by controlling the movement and radicalizing it for the main stream to reject and others to take up an unworthy cause.
That leaves only a small few going in the right direction,which is easiier to manage.

I do wonder how much Alex Jones is worth these days.

--Kaiser--

This is actually a decent article, makes a nice change from the drivel usually linked on this forum

davoxx

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I didn't dismiss evidence, I dismissed opinion. Opinion is not evidence of anything, except itself.

That was the whole point I was making.

that evidence can not be misleading? i disagree.
and people here often dismiss evidence as opinion.

if you are talking about a fact, then yes a fact is a fact, but when used to support or reject a theory it becomes evidence.
this is often misused, statistics being an obvious contender is often misinterpreted and given as evidence. comparing numerical wealth with that in the past is an example. saying that 50% of all accidents involve speed while omitting the percentage of alcohol related accidents.
i suppose my point is that correlation does not imply causation.

Monty Burnz

davoxx wrote: »

that evidence can not be misleading? i disagree.
and people here often dismiss evidence as opinion.

I never suggested that evidence cannot be misleading - we see that here all the time. But you seem to be suggesting that this story should be considered useful evidence - evidence to the effect that all Americans will be implanted with devil chips by early next year:

A major news story broke on AOL and countless other mainstream news media outlets, this past week, that the Obama Health Care Bill will require all U.S. citizens and babies to receive a microchip or Medchip by March 23, 2013. Whether or not the microchip requirement in the bill is implemented by 2013, remains to be seen.

In 2010, my book “Are You Ready for the Microchip?” was released, and I asked the question, “Is the microchip implant hidden in the Healthcare Bill? Are newborn children starting in 2013 going to receive a microchip shortly after birth?” Then in the book, I wrote, “ In the massive US HEALTHCARE BILL, which your elected representatives voted for without reading, there is a section titled: Subtitle C-11 Sec. 2521 – National Medical Device Registry which states:

“The Secretary shall establish a national medical device registry (in this subsection referred to as the ‘registry’) to facilitate analysis of postmarket safety and outcomes data on each device that—‘‘(A) is or has been used in or on a patient; and ‘‘(B) is a class III device; or ‘‘(ii) a class II device that is implantable.”

The language is deliberately vague, but it provides the structure for making America the first nation in the world that would require every U.S. citizen to receive an implanted radio-frequency (RFID) microchip for the purpose of controlling medical care.

A number of states like Virginia, have passed “stop the mark of the beast legislation” in an effort to stop this kind of legislation.

...and so on and so forth. This story is in fact a tissue of speculation, nonsense and outright fabrication, so I think most people would agree that it should not be characterised as evidence of anything other than that such speculation exists.

This may be O/T for this thread.

davoxx

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I never suggested that evidence cannot be misleading - we see that here all the time. But you seem to be suggesting that this story should be considered useful evidence - evidence to the effect that all Americans will be implanted with devil chips by early next year:

i made no such claim.
you dismissed that article in its entirety because the website was a doomsday site according to you.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

...and so on and so forth. This story is in fact a tissue of speculation, nonsense and outright fabrication, so I think most people would agree that it should not be characterised as evidence of anything other than that such speculation exists.

you are interpreting this article as stating that the chips will be implanted for certain, while the article is just giving some background into this matter.

why did you not try to address and expose/clarify what you see as "speculation, nonsense and outright fabrication"?

Monty Burnz wrote: »

This may be O/T for this thread.

it probably was, but it does elaborate on the concept of what is evidence and what is not and how it affects an opinion.

Monty Burnz

davoxx wrote: »

i made no such claim.
you dismissed that article in its entirety because the website was a doomsday site according to you.

I dismissed the article because it is a pile of opinion/piffle/speculation from a dodgy source, and it was being presented as evidence to back up a claim.

e.g.

The new microchip technology with an RFID chip is so advanced it sounds like science fiction. The Apostle Paul explains how this fits into Revelation 13, where the False Prophet will head a one world religion and force people to accept the mark of the beast. A microchip implant, biochip implant or med chip, in and of itself, is not necessarily the mark of the beast. The mark of the beast under the direction of the False Prophet, requires the conscious rejection of Jesus Christ as Lord and a commitment to worship the Antichrist as God.

davoxx

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I dismissed the article because it is a pile of opinion/piffle/speculation from a dodgy source, and it was being presented as evidence to back up a claim.

was it the source or content?
it is opinion, no sure about it being piffle, or speculation.
but is it not evidence as to how a christian would interpret being forced to be micro-chipped?

Monty Burnz wrote: »

e.g.

i have no idea what that quote is meant to say. to me it says that the rfid chip is advanced, and that their religious spokesperson says it can be interpreted as the 'mark of the beast'.

it may not be relevant to the claim that was being backed up, but you did not say it was not relevant, you attacked it as piffle from a dodgy source.

as much as i hate organised religion, there have been very smart and honest men within these organisations. i listen to what they say, i may nor believe it or following it, but i certainly don't dismiss everything they say because they believe in heaven/reincarnation.

Monty Burnz

davoxx wrote: »

was it the source or content?
it is opinion, no sure about it being piffle, or speculation.
but is it not evidence as to how a christian would interpret being forced to be micro-chipped?

It is indeed evidence of how a certain type of fringe far-right Christian would interpret micro-chipping, but it was presented as evidence that it is actually happening.

davoxx wrote: »

i have no idea what that quote is meant to say. to me it says that the rfid chip is advanced, and that their religious spokesperson says it can be interpreted as the 'mark of the beast'.

it may not be relevant to the claim that was being backed up, but you did not say it was not relevant, you attacked it as piffle from a dodgy source.

As much as I'd like to systematically demolish every piece of nonsense that is posted here line by line, I just don't have the time. So sometimes, when something that is self-evidently not evidence for the claim that is being made, I dismiss it out of hand. You did likewise with the video I posted as 'evidence' that Obama is not a Nazi. Sometimes things are so obvious that they really don't need an essay to explain why they are as they are.

davoxx

Monty Burnz wrote: »

It is indeed evidence of how a certain type of fringe far-right Christian would interpret micro-chipping, but it was presented as evidence that it is actually happening.

was it not presented as evidence that it will happen?
if it was present as evidence that it is actually happening, as simple comment stating that "that article does not show that micro-chipping is currently happing" would have sufficed. dismissing it as piffle from doomsday loving crazies puts your understanding of evidence in question.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

As much as I'd like to systematically demolish every piece of nonsense that is posted here line by line, I just don't have the time. So sometimes, when something that is self-evidently not evidence for the claim that is being made, I dismiss it out of hand.

nobody has time on either side of the fence as it were, though it is helpful if you do disagree with something to actually address why you have an issue rather that confusing the situation by going off on a tangent.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You did likewise with the video I posted as 'evidence' that Obama is not a Nazi.

not true. i did not dismiss your comments based on the fact that it came from you. if that were the case i'd never even bother replying to your posts.
i watched that video to see if obama made any reference relevant to a claim that he was not a nazi.
i found none so i was confused as to why you posted that.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Sometimes things are so obvious that they really don't need an essay to explain why they are as they are.

sometimes they are so "obvious" that nobody actually checks, sometimes the are so obvious yet people get it wrong.
you don't need an essay, you don't need to exaggerate, you just need to address the point.

and what is obvious for one person, might be hidden/obfuscated to another purely because of their access to information. we should try to inform people rather than mock them.

this feeds into doomsday claims, y2k is an obvious example to me.
i was in a lecture with a ucd computer science lecture who claimed that the date error could cause a plane to crash :eek:

Monty Burnz

davoxx wrote: »

was it not presented as evidence that it will happen?
if it was present as evidence that it is actually happening, as simple comment stating that "that article does not show that micro-chipping is currently happing" would have sufficed. dismissing it as piffle from doomsday loving crazies puts your understanding of evidence in question.

I'm afraid it was piffle from doom-loving crazies (nice description, by the way). It was presented by RTDH as evidence that Obama has made a provision for microchipping everyone in the US:

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

And his provision for microchipping chipping the masses. :eek:

Pretty black and white. And of course the 'article' contained no (factual) evidence of that whatsoever.

davoxx

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm afraid it was piffle from doom-loving crazies (nice description, by the way). It was presented by RTDH as evidence that Obama has made a provision for microchipping everyone in the US:

from that article which rtdh read, it certainly appears that obama has.
you should have addressed the issue like you do below ...
you could have presented evidence to show that it was misinformation http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/microchip.asp

but you choose to mock the source, which did not help.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

And of course the 'article' contained no (factual) evidence of that whatsoever.

neither did your rebuttal of nazi obama, and this is the issue here, you could have addressed the fact that there was no evidence, thereby helping people make a better informed opinion.

also you must remember that governments are not especially open about what is being discussed and who they take advice from. freedom of information has shown that politicians say one thing while doing another.

Monty Burnz

davoxx wrote: »

from that article which rtdh read, it certainly appears that obama has.

I'm sorry, but he certainly has not. This CT hinges on a (deliberate?) misunderstanding of a simple medical registry. I'm surely not the first to point out this ridiculous mistake, but the lie gets repeated nonetheless.

davoxx wrote: »

neither did your rebuttal of nazi obama, and this is the issue here, you could have addressed the fact that there was no evidence, thereby helping people make a better informed opinion.

Yes, as I think I've explained 5 or so times, the Obama video was posted as an example of providing 'evidence' that does not prove your claim. Mind you, in that thread, RTDH declared that it is the responsibility of everybody else to disprove what you are saying, rather than for you to prove it. However, he has yet to disprove that I am the risen Jesus so I guess he must have accepted that fact now...

davoxx

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm sorry, but he certainly has not. This CT hinges on a (deliberate?) misunderstanding of a simple medical registry. I'm surely not the first to point out this ridiculous mistake, but the lie gets repeated nonetheless.

and that is why you should address that mistake rather than say the source is a doomsday loving crazie ... i'm not sure why you feel that it was okay to make a bad argument, it confuses the point. surely you can see that?

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Yes, as I think I've explained 5 or so times, the Obama video was posted as an example of providing 'evidence' that does not prove your claim.

i know, and as i've pointed out each time, it was misleading. in the very least it make anyone unsure of your point when at any of your 'evidence'.

and doesn't that validate my point of 'evidence' where you contested "Evidence is misleading?"

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Mind you, in that thread, RTDH declared that it is the responsibility of everybody else to disprove what you are saying, rather than for you to prove it. However, he has yet to disprove that I am the risen Jesus so I guess he must have accepted that fact now...

it depends on the claim to be fair. and if you can disprove it, you should, if you can't you should ask for some proof as to why the poster believes what he believes.

and you going of on a tangent of mocking him by claiming that you are jesus is helping who?

this feeds into why there are doomsday fanatics, rather than people explaining facts, they mock them and those mocked assume that they are right as someone should have been able to explain to them why they were wrong.

there maybe lost causes on both sides, but shouldn't we try to help? otherwise why bother visiting these forums?

Monty Burnz

davoxx wrote: »

and that is why you should address that mistake rather than say the source is a doomsday loving crazie ... i'm not sure why you feel that it was okay to make a bad argument, it confuses the point. surely you can see that?

As I said, I've limited time and patience for spelling everything out. Perhaps I could draw up a list of websites like this one and outline why each one is a viper's nest of lies and fiction, but that would be a huge effort and they are like cockroaches anyway, springing up all over the place.

davoxx wrote: »

i know, and as i've pointed out each time, it was misleading. in the very least it make anyone unsure of your point when at any of your 'evidence'.

and doesn't that validate my point of 'evidence' where you contested "Evidence is misleading?"

I'm not sure exactly what you are saying here, but I sometimes resort to 'reductio ad absurdum' to try demonstrate how silly certain claims or arguments are. I think it's a useful and valid tool in this sort of discourse.

davoxx wrote: »

it depends on the claim to be fair. and if you can disprove it, you should, if you can't you should ask for some proof as to why the poster believes what he believes.

With certain posters, you can ask for proof all you like, but all you get are further links to nonsensical websites. For some reason, when you ask specific questions, their posts dry up, and they spring up on another thread making the same nonsensical claims.

davoxx wrote: »

and you going of on a tangent of mocking him by claiming that you are jesus is helping who?

Reductio ad absurdum. Hopefully even the slowest of contributors can thus see how ridiculous it is to be forced to disprove an outlandish claim.

davoxx wrote: »

this feeds into why there are doomsday fanatics, rather than people explaining facts, they mock them and those mocked assume that they are right as someone should have been able to explain to them why they were wrong.

there maybe lost causes on both sides, but shouldn't we try to help? otherwise why bother visiting these forums?

I visit this forum because I imagine that some people who are wavering may be saved from the broader CT fantasy world if people use logic, reason and facts to point out the stupidity of some of the CTs posited here.

On the other hand, you will notice that there are some threads that I do not post on at all, or indeed post in support of or with what you might call a 'neutral' view as - as I have said - I don't deny the existence of CTs, only the existence of the really silly ones.

davoxx

Monty Burnz wrote: »

As I said, I've limited time and patience for spelling everything out.

as i've pointed out, why bother commenting so? it takes more effort to explain your "point" than actually explaining the actual point.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm not sure exactly what you are saying here, but I sometimes resort to 'reductio ad absurdum' to try demonstrate how silly certain claims or arguments are. I think it's a useful and valid tool in this sort of discourse.

or appears that you are purporting silly claims yourself.
also i'm not sure if you are actually using 'reductio ad absurdum' correctly.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

With certain posters, you can ask for proof all you like, but all you get are further links to nonsensical websites. For some reason, when you ask specific questions, their posts dry up, and they spring up on another thread making the same nonsensical claims.

that is true. doesn't explain why one should not ask for proof, and if they open another thread, report them to a mod?

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Reductio ad absurdum. Hopefully even the slowest of contributors can thus see how ridiculous it is to be forced to disprove an outlandish claim.

are you sure you are not misusing it: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I visit this forum because I imagine that some people who are wavering may be saved from the broader CT fantasy world if people use logic, reason and facts to point out the stupidity of some of the CTs posited here.

but yet you can't be bothered to explain it properly? if you've limited time why not use it constructively rather than half assed?

i notice that you also assume that people can be saved from ct fantasy world if they use logic. you do know that they can also be saved from the ct deny make believe world if they also used logic.
stupidity is often seen in posts by people claiming to use logic, reason and facts to debunk ct ... 911 and the fall of building 7 showed how blatant that was with members droning on about unicorns and space lasers while comparing them to existence of explosives.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

On the other hand, you will notice that there are some threads that I do not post on at all, or indeed post in support of or with what you might call a 'neutral' view as - as I have said - I don't deny the existence of CTs, only the existence of the really silly ones.

well all deny the existence of both silly cts and silly official stories. being ridiculous is not limited to cts.

Monty Burnz

davoxx wrote: »

as i've pointed out, why bother commenting so? it takes more effort to explain your "point" than actually explaining the actual point.

See my last point in the quoted post.

davoxx wrote: »

or appears that you are purporting silly claims yourself.
also i'm not sure if you are actually using 'reductio ad absurdum' correctly.

I am using it quite correctly.

davoxx wrote: »

that is true. doesn't explain why one should not ask for proof, and if they open another thread, report them to a mod?

I have done so.

davoxx wrote: »

are you sure you are not misusing it: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Yes, quite sure, thank you.

Reductio ad absurdum is the technique of reducing an argument or hypothesis to absurdity, by pushing the argument's premises or conclusions to their logical limits and showing how ridiculous the consequences would be, thus disproving or discrediting the argument.

For example, by demanding that RTDH disproves my claim that I am Jesus, I take his claim (that the burden of proof is on others to disprove his claims) to its logical limit.

davoxx wrote: »

but yet you can't be bothered to explain it properly? if you've limited time why not use it constructively rather than half assed?

I assure you I am using my whole ass.

davoxx wrote: »

i notice that you also assume that people can be saved from ct fantasy world if they use logic. you do know that they can also be saved from the ct deny make believe world if they also used logic.
stupidity is often seen in posts by people claiming to use logic, reason and facts to debunk ct ... 911 and the fall of building 7 showed how blatant that was with members droning on about unicorns and space lasers while comparing them to existence of explosives.

As I think I've stated, I don't for one second deny that some CTs are quite true. I'd rather not get stuck into a debate on 9/11 here, of course.

davoxx wrote: »

well all deny the existence of both silly cts and silly official stories. being ridiculous is not limited to cts.

Some people here never deny even the silliest CTs, while I would point out that I have posted in support of some of the CTs discussed here. I'd suggest that that indicates that I am more even-handed than some give me credit for.

davoxx

Monty Burnz wrote: »

For example, by demanding that RTDH disproves my claim that I am Jesus, I take his claim (that the burden of proof is on others to disprove his claims) to its logical limit.

i see what you mean but i'm sure that the logical limit of his claim is not that you claim to be jesus. you claiming to be jesus is just another wild claim and you assume that rtdh believes that you are not jesus and not crazy.

he might also assume that there is enough evidence to back his point up and that it is obvious, as you have done, to warrant not providing such evidence.

more importantly can you prove that you are jesus? can you prove that you are not?

i think the requirement of "showing how ridiculous the consequences would be" has not been met, hence why i think you've miss used it.

In its most general construal, reductio ad absurdum – reductio for short – is a process of refutation on grounds that absurd – and patently untenable consequences would ensue from accepting the item at issue. This takes three principal forms according as that untenable consequence is:

1. a self-contradiction (ad absurdum)

2. a falsehood (ad falsum or even ad impossibile)

3. an implausibility or anomaly (ad ridiculum or ad incommodum)

The first of these is reductio ad absurdum in its strictest construction and the other two cases involve a rather wider and looser sense of the term... Reductio argumentation is a special case of demonstrative reasoning [indirect proof].

http://www.iep.utm.edu/reductio/


for me, if someone has presented you with an idea and says that the burden of proof is on you to disprove the idea, you should work out what the null hypothesis is and then put their evidence for the idea against it. the person claiming something is possible or has happened will need to produce evidence to refute the null hypothesis. if they have considerable and well-tested evidence, the burden of proof may reasonably be considered to be on the person claiming that the evidence does not hold.

Monty Burnz

davoxx wrote: »

i see what you mean but i'm sure that the logical limit of his claim is not that you claim to be jesus. you claiming to be jesus is just another wild claim and you assume that rtdh believes that you are not jesus and not crazy.

You seem to be misunderstanding what is being demonstrated - if his contention is that the burden is on others to disprove a claim, I have demonstrated that this premise is absurd because it means that the logical conclusion of his argument is that he must somehow prove that I am not Jesus. Hence his allocation of the burden of proof is mistaken in logic.

davoxx wrote: »

for me, if someone has presented you with an idea and says that the burden of proof is on you to disprove the idea, you should work out what the null hypothesis is and then put their evidence for the idea against it. the person claiming something is possible or has happened will need to produce evidence to refute the null hypothesis. if they have considerable and well-tested evidence, the burden of proof may reasonably be considered to be on the person claiming that the evidence does not hold.

I think this approach may well work with some posters, but not with the poster in question.

davoxx

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You seem to be misunderstanding what is being demonstrated - if his contention is that the burden is on others to disprove a claim, I have demonstrated that this premise is absurd because it means that the logical conclusion of his argument is that he must somehow prove that I am not Jesus. Hence his allocation of the burden of proof is mistaken in logic.

but your demonstration clearly shows that the person making the claim can not provide proof to support his claim thereby supporting his argument that he does not need to provide proof. therefore you have now purporting that his claim is only a belief with no possibility of proof one way or another.

if the claim is that: 'the burden of proof lies with the disputant'
and by reductio ad absurdum you claim that: 'you can't proof that i'm not jesus'
assuming that claimant believes that you are not jesus, they then fail to prove that you are not jesus.

you now believe that means that you shown that: burden of proof lies with claimant
but claimant knows that you can't prove that you are jesus, you can't provide proof of your claim.
therefore the argument breaks down.

Monty Burnz

davoxx wrote: »

but your demonstration clearly shows that the person making the claim can not provide proof to support his claim thereby supporting his argument that he does not need to provide proof. therefore you have now purporting that his claim is only a belief with no possibility of proof one way or another.

if the claim is that: 'the burden of proof lies with the disputant'
and by reductio ad absurdum you claim that: 'you can't proof that i'm not jesus'
assuming that claimant believes that you are not jesus, they then fail to prove that you are not jesus.

you now believe that means that you shown that: burden of proof lies with claimant
but claimant knows that you can't prove that you are jesus, you can't provide proof of your claim.
therefore the argument breaks down.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here to be honest.

--Kaiser--

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here to be honest.

That's because it's twaddle

davoxx

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here to be honest.

fair enough

davoxx

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

That's because it's twaddle

care to clarify what/how it is twaddle?

--Kaiser--

davoxx wrote: »

care to clarify what/how it is twaddle?

It's incoherent babble and I couldn't make head nor tail of it. Read this for Bertrand Russel's explanation of why the burden of proof lies with someone making a claim

davoxx

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

It's incoherent babble and I couldn't make head nor tail of it.

that's probably your fault rather than mine.
http://bulletproofpresentations.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/dilbert-5-17-12.jpg

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Read this for Bertrand Russel's explanation of why the burden of proof lies with someone making a claim

ah yes, great another wiki page delivered by someone who has no idea what it means.

great i'll retype that page again ... you do know that i typed up some of that page?

anyway ... the burden of proof is related to the claim.

read this first then come back to me
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof