The moronic tyranny of the "there´s no proof" crowd

There is no moronic tyranny in scientific proof. It's either there or it isn't. If evidence can stand the test of scientific scrutiny then it becomes fact.

The problem is not lack of respect of ones beliefs. The problem is lack of respect for the scientific method.

Humans work that way. It's the way we've always learned things. And it's the reason we are able to invent and progress. We no longer live in caves because of the scientific method. Even if the first inventors didn't know they were using it. It is universal and it is truth. Having beliefs without facts is absurd.

reply to post by Liberty1


There's two sides to every coin. One could argue the more we have analyzed and invented in our past, the farther away from our true nature we have gone. Humans now have the ability to destroy the Earth many times over due to scientific process, but we are no closer to understanding why we are here in the first place because of an over-reliance on scientific scrutiny.

At any juncture in history, the common model for scientific knowledge has never been proven to be Universal Truth, nor should it ever be treated as such.

I find it interesting that so many responders have ignored the last word in the topic of this thread, and are wrongly equating "the 'there's no proof' crowd" with the scientific method, evidence, or proof itself.

I think the objection is not to evidence, but to the refusal to allow time for an idea to blossom before clubbing it with demands for "proof", and the refusal to entertain further speculation – which is needed even in the scientific method.

In the "scientific method", you come up with a theory that explains the evidence you have. But it must be testable – that is, you must spend some time thinking, "well, if I'm right about this, what would the other consequences be?" And you do that before you actually have the test results, hopefully, or you end up with a self-fulfilling prophecy and bad science.

So why is our gut reaction when faced with a strange hypothesis, to say "no, I won't think about that until you prove it?"

This, in my mind, is a different question from asking for the source of a fact. If for example you say "there are ten banks that own the Fed and these are them," I want to know where you got the list.

But if you say, "I was abducted by aliens last night," that is experiential evidence – you are the source, you are not citing a secondary source. I can ask why you think that, but I can't deny that you think that. The experience was a true experience, whatever it's physical source.

I don't know, these are just some thoughts I've been having since I read the thread yesterday.

Thanks Skyfloating for a thought-provoking read

It all comes down to accepting other peoples opinion's and view's. As you have seen from this thread some people can't!

I need Proof to Believe, other people believe and don't need Proof, some people think anything is possible. Theres nothing wrong with asking for Proof, theres nothing wrong with just believing or thinking anything is possible. If you come on to a thread and shoot someone down just you don't like what they believe thats ""MORONIC''. Thats not what ATS is all about!

I don't know is life exists or not!

Originally posted by TSOM87
Theres nothing wrong with asking for Proof, theres nothing wrong with just believing or thinking anything is possible.

But demanding proof from someone who doesn't have it is completely unproductive.

There's nothing wrong with asking for evidence, in my opinion. There's a problem when that turns into demanding proof.

If a thread doesn't have what you need to see to believe, move on.

I understand the frustration about threads that title themselves "100% PROOF! MUST SEE AND YOU WILL KNOW!!!" and don't deliver. But trolling them demanding that they live up to their title doesn't accomplish anything.

Edit after some thought: Actually, it accomplishes one thing very effectively. It divides the community of interested minds into two reactive and defensive camps, making it much harder to have a productive discussion.

[edit on 11/3/08 by americandingbat]

Originally posted by Liberty1
There is no moronic tyranny in scientific proof. It's either there or it isn't. If evidence can stand the test of scientific scrutiny then it becomes fact.

I sat down with a group of friends at a fireplace. Above us the stars in the sky. We began letting our thoughts run free. The subject of UFOs came up and we speculated on various aspects of it. We were having a pleasant time, until someone barged into our discussion saying: "If evidence cant stand the test of scientific structiny then its not a fact!"

We said..."chill out man. Have a beer. Gaze at some of the stars

Melissa, her eyes twinkling in the reflection of the starlight, decided to open up about something she had never shared before. Now seemed like the right time.

"My mom says she was abducted by aliens and..."

She was interrupted mid-sentence: "Do you have any proof? If you dont, than this is ridiculous!"

We asked that she be able to finish her story before judging, but the moronic tyrants had hijacked our little get-together at the fireplace.



[edit on 3-11-2008 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by americandingbat

I think the objection is not to evidence, but to the refusal to allow time for an idea to blossom before clubbing it with demands for "proof", and the refusal to entertain further speculation – which is needed even in the scientific method.

That is PRECISELY what this thread is about. Clubbing it before letting it blossom.

Thanks.

reply to post by swdecord


yes..excellent. Excellent. Excellent.

We are being accused of naively believing in anything, but the opposite is the case: We are not naively believing in everything...which is why we are conspiracy-theorists.

Originally posted by americandingbat

Originally posted by TSOM87
Theres nothing wrong with asking for Proof, theres nothing wrong with just believing or thinking anything is possible.

But demanding proof from someone who doesn't have it is completely unproductive.

There's nothing wrong with asking for evidence, in my opinion. There's a problem when that turns into demanding proof.

If a thread doesn't have what you need to see to believe, move on.

I understand the frustration about threads that title themselves "100% PROOF! MUST SEE AND YOU WILL KNOW!!!" and don't deliver. But trolling them demanding that they live up to their title doesn't accomplish anything.

Edit after some thought: Actually, it accomplishes one thing very effectively. It divides the community of interested minds into two reactive and defensive camps, making it much harder to have a productive discussion.

[edit on 11/3/08 by americandingbat]

I accept everything you have said!

If someone demands ''Proof'' from someone who hasen't got it, yeah, move on!

Asking for ''Proof'' (With Respect) aint a problem!

Originally posted by americandingbat

Originally posted by TSOM87
Theres nothing wrong with asking for Proof, theres nothing wrong with just believing or thinking anything is possible.

But demanding proof from someone who doesn't have it is completely unproductive.

There's nothing wrong with asking for evidence, in my opinion. There's a problem when that turns into demanding proof.

If a thread doesn't have what you need to see to believe, move on.

I understand the frustration about threads that title themselves "100% PROOF! MUST SEE AND YOU WILL KNOW!!!" and don't deliver. But trolling them demanding that they live up to their title doesn't accomplish anything.

Edit after some thought: Actually, it accomplishes one thing very effectively. It divides the community of interested minds into two reactive and defensive camps, making it much harder to have a productive discussion.

[edit on 11/3/08 by americandingbat]

Actually, I think you've got that the wrong way around. I think the person creating the thread titled like "100% PROOF! MUST SEE AND YOU WILL KNOW!!!" and doesn't deliver is the troll, not the people that respond and it's they that are dividing the community.

reply to post by Liberty1

There is no moronic tyranny in scientific proof. It's either there or it isn't. If evidence can stand the test of scientific scrutiny then it becomes fact.

Point I was making, was that yes, it's either there or it isn't (proof) but this does not reflect on the subject, sometime, proof just can't be given for some subjects, such as dimensions and their place in this reality, if any, or a secret space program. Point is, there may be lots of 'evidence' but no proof, this shouldn't mean people hide behind this as an excuse.

If they don't believe it, fine, it's up to them but they shoud stop going round saying this is rubbish, this is rediculous or this could never happen, because, believe it or not, people are easily swayed and coming into a thread, claiming everything is rubbish is a quick way to turn people off the subject, which in some cases, iMO, is the intent.

Either way, if people just read with an open mind as to what is reality, or what is possible and believers and skeptics alike where to state their opinions rather than 'facts' or truth we would get alot more done.

Humans work that way. It's the way we've always learned things. And it's the reason we are able to invent and progress. We no longer live in caves because of the scientific method. Even if the first inventors didn't know they were using it. It is universal and it is truth. Having beliefs without facts is absurd.

I have to disagree with this, humans, by their very nature are intuitive and creative, that is how we progressed, right up until the 'scientific method' was created and we ain't done half bad. It was Volter(sp?), that supposed the universe was created through a large explosion, an idea later adopted and applied through 'scientific methods'. This is but one example, there are many more, that new concepts of science, seem to find their first forms of expression through creative channels, scientific method merely serves to develop the theory, at least IMO. We even have roots in the esoteric, the Aether and oneness as an example, these are being researched now through 'scientific method'.

And beliefs without facts? P-uhlease, science has hardly found any facts, merely assumptions that they parade as facts, it's a belief system in itself IMO.

We are in our infancy, we have no facts, to place our belief in, so we choose what we believe in the hope of discovering truth.

Using this logic, everything that is currently known about our world/solar system/galaxy/universe (as an example) is correct and we have nowhere too progress, I could use this same logic for history, biology, physics...the list goes on, facts are subjective, fact.

EMM

Edit to add:

I need Proof to Believe, other people believe and don't need Proof, some people think anything is possible. Theres nothing wrong with asking for Proof, theres nothing wrong with just believing or thinking anything is possible. If you come on to a thread and shoot someone down just you don't like what they believe thats ""MORONIC''. Thats not what ATS is all about!

I don't know is life exists or not!

star for you, but sadly, ATS is becoming more and more about proving one side right, than discussing and exploring ideas/ideals, IMO.

[edit on 3-11-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

[edit on 3-11-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

Originally posted by Merriman Weir
Actually, I think you've got that the wrong way around. I think the person creating the thread titled like "100% PROOF! MUST SEE AND YOU WILL KNOW!!!" and doesn't deliver is the troll, not the people that respond and it's they that are dividing the community.

Do we have to limit ourselves to only one troll in this situation?

We're in a thread about people who respond to speculation by demanding proof, so that's the question I addressed.

I agree that in some cases people who post "100% PROOF!" threads (particularly if they do so repeatedly) are trolling, and I definitely agree that they are partially responsible for the dichotomization of the community. When someone writes a thread about how unnecessary it is to claim "100% PROOF", and how counterproductive, I will post to that thread and call it as I see it there too

You said "And so, in case of cover-ups, we are left with very scant evidence...if any. We have to do real detective work...speculate...extrapolate...connect dots... dismiss preconceptions...consider every angle...consider and re-consider...collect and discard information... "

Couldn't agree more. You're obviously a sceptic at heart.

There's nothing wrong with people saying "there's no evidence" if that is true. It's certainly not moronic. On the contrary, there isn't enough critical thinking on these kind of sites. There are far too many whacked out nuts who will gullibly swallow anything as long as it's wrapped in an easy to swallow conspiracy sandwich.

What I often see on these kind of sites is a very powerful will to believe among some people. I remain sceptical of many of the claims posted on this site simply because no verifiable evidence ever arises. And without verifiable evidence, there is nowhere left to go.

What's the evidence is my first question, not why are the illuminati covering up the evidence.

But critical thinking also means that I keep an open mind and question what I read and see in the mainstream too (altho it is arguable whether a site like this is part of the mainstream). Rarely do the likes of CNN and ATS cross. Why? Because our worldviews our polarised - CNN knows that conspiracies don't exist, ATS sees them everywhere.

To be quite honest, I'd rather bury my head in the sand than pointlessly argue with some screamer who is fixated with his NWO conspiracy theory but can never substantiate one single claim with evidence.

If someone comes on to ATS and claims to have been on a UFO or have been on another Planet or that they are living with an Alien. If i ask them for ''Proof'' (With Respect), Is that Disrespectful?

Is it Disrespectful for me to ask for ''Proof''?

I don't think it is.

What i think is disrespectful, is someone shooting someone down for ''Proof'' even though that person has said he aint got any.

That needs to stop!

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by swdecord

 

yes..excellent. Excellent. Excellent.

We are being accused of naively believing in anything, but the opposite is the case: We are not naively believing in everything...which is why we are conspiracy-theorists.

It's only naive when one accepts someone's theory without getting evidence and then verifying that evidence. How many conspiracies have evidence to support them, let alone verifiable evidence? The very nature of a conspiracy precludes evidence..unless a conspirator can be interrogated.

[edit on 3-11-2008 by LocknLock]

I could be wrong...it happens, but I believe what I'm about to post..I read on this site.
"Those who believe, need no proof. Those who do not believe, any amount of proof will be insufficient."
agree with this statement.

Researchers and detectives follow leads. Which is what a conspiracy theorist is. A researcher, a seeker. The detective doesn't need proof. He needs a few dots to follow. This is the difference between a scientist and a theorist. One is working from proof and facts based on a list of data we have accumulated. The other is looking for more data to POSSIBLY add to that list. No one is asking anyone to believe their ideas, only to look at the information. Discernment is required when reading those threads. But when a "scientist" type thinker comes along and tries to devalue what the detective is trying to achieve, then emotions become involved. Egos flare. Beliefs are argued.

Another problem is when the detective thinks he is a scientist. Such as in religion. They think that their beliefs are facts, scientific facts, when in reality they are only a theory. And theories are always up for debate. How each one handles that debate is what is at stake here. Manners and decorum are good for communication. It is a skill used by the best of them. In order to get anywhere or actually get people to listen to you, you need logic and common sense, and facts. No one will listen if you are demanding, and insulting, and mean.

You can't go around demanding proof, in a theory based thread, and expect the people to stop sharing those ideas just because you want it. That's not how it works.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by swdecord

 

yes..excellent. Excellent. Excellent.

We are being accused of naively believing in anything, but the opposite is the case: We are not naively believing in everything...which is why we are conspiracy-theorists.

Thanks Skyfloating...

My mantra is "Question Everything..."

I think I almost drove someone, who was a true rationalist, insane by answering all of their conspiracy rebuking questions with a question....

I even told my kids to question me and my theories...

Originally posted by wolfmother
I could be wrong...it happens, but I believe what I'm about to post..I read on this site.
"Those who believe, need no proof. Those who do not believe, any amount of proof will be insufficient."
agree with this statement.

Yes...

Religion is based upon pure faith and belief, as little real "physical" evidence exists...

But, I know many religious people who go on faith and belief without question...

BTW, I am not engaging in an attack on religion...Just making a statement...

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Conducting an act of conspiracy, cover-up. a hidden-agenda or an act of ill-intent implies removing proof and evidence of it entirely.

And so, in case of cover-ups, we are left with very scant evidence...if any.
We have to do real detective work...speculate...extrapolate...connect dots... dismiss preconceptions...consider every angle...consider and re-consider...collect and discard information...

The work of the conspiracy-researcher is inhibited by what I´d here like to call The moronic tyranny of the "there´s no proof" crowd.

So what are you talking about, specifically?

Let me list a few conspiracies:
- 9/11 government coverup conspiracy
- UFO alien visitation coverup conspiracy
- New World Order agenda conspiracy

let's look at 9/11. Is there evidence of a conspiracy? Absolutely! There are many videos of collapses, as well as interviews of experts in the field of construction, engineering, and demolition. Taking that, and adding other details such as how quickly and hastily the debris of WTC has been removed and shipped overseas definitely lends more credibility that it's a coverup. Other details such as only several million being spent on 9/11 commission report (which doesn't even touch on the WTC7 building) compared to hundreds of millions spent on Clinton's lewinsky investigation definitely help to create a bigger picture. While none of the items above are "proof" in itself, the collective picture painted is rather irrefutable.

Lets compare the UFO alien visitation invasion. There is no evidence. The only evidence we have is some unexplained sky phenomena. Sometimes it's flashing lights. Sometimes it's an artifact appearing or flying through the camera. There are interviews, which are often first person accounts of such sightings. There are interviews of people in authority, or former people in authority, such as air traffic controllers. They can attest to witnessing an unidentified flying object. There is no denying that something unexplained can occur and probably did. But to stretch this into works of fantasy about alien stories is nothing short of moronic, to use your term. It is far more moronic to believe in aliens and conjured stories without any evidence of alien existence than it is to question everything with a comment of "where's proof".

Perhaps you meant something else, or someone else, but your post was rather vague, so i apologize if my reply wasn't up the alley.