You are 100% wrong! Deny Ignorance

reply to post by whoshotJR


Thanks for this post. You are right on target. There are always a lot of closed minds. There are skeptics that will never use the scientific method or critical thinking even though it is what they claim to be using.

They use flawed thinking everywhere they turn and yet blame others for flawed thinking. Asking for more evidence is one thing, but calling someone stupid for thinking outside of the box is different. As soon as that happens, they are no longer a true skeptic or a debunker.

Whenever you get into a technological area, you will always get people who will say that it will never happen. The patent office at one time said that everything that could be invented was invented already. Most pseudo skeptics and debunkers fall into this trap.

Just because it is not possible now doesn't mean that it will NEVER be possible. Rather than name calling, we should be coming together to solve problems.

I starred and flagged your post. Keep up the good work!

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
So basically we all have to sit back and let various members make allsorts of outrageous and un-proven claims without questioning it or criticising it? Surely that's not what ATS has become, a breeding ground for the mad, bad and crazy? A place for them to peddle their ridiculous theories, claims and prophecies without being asked for a modicum of proof?

"Oh dear!"

No ones saying don't question them, no one is saying you have to believe them, just don't belittle or disregard due to a lack of evidence, consider and accept or reject, but accept that it is your opinion, based on your suppositions, drawn from your experience.

I personally think that would help ALOT around here.

EMM

reply to post by whoshotJR


This thread makes me think back to something I read long ago.. I still like to bring this up from time to time.. AS its true..

Such as I can not prove that I am sitting in this realiaty, I only have evidence that says that I am, but am I really at the base root?


So take a look at this.. The dragon in my garage by Carl Sagan.

The Dragon In My Garage
by
Carl Sagan
"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"
Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floates in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.

The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility.

Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative-- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."

Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons--to say nothing about invisible ones--you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.

Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages--but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.

Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence"--no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it--is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.

I think this right here is directly related to your OP..


As I hope this little tale will bring some more sense into what you are trying to find out.
In essence we know next to nothing about the world we live in..
Hell we dont even know if we are really even here..
All we have is evidence.. This whole proof deal with people is a mental catch 22.. A fail safe for our minds to feel as if are not all crazy.
Or that we are some how normal..
But in essence there is no such thing as normal..

Can we truely say we are on a huge rock that is hurling threw space. spinning around what we call a sun, in what we call the universe.
Honestly we dont know, nor can we prove anything.

We humans have a long ways to go before we grow as a people.
Before we can set outside ourselfs, and understand that we are a very small part of something even greater!!!


Peace


[edit on 27-11-2008 by zysin5]

Originally posted by OldMedic
Hate to tell you, but just because someone writes it, and puts it one the Internet, does not make it facutal.

There are lots of lies posted, for whatever reason.

No, you can not prove that something does not exist. But, when you get some nut case telling us he woke up with a demon in his bed, you can pretty well tell that he is off of his medications again.

And the fact that YOU don't believe does not mean a conspiracy is at work. Most likely, no amount of proof would convince you.

Making a personal judgment about somebody you haven't even met? Wouldn't you think that a claim like that requires just as much evidence? A personal attack weakens your argument.

-rrr

Good post

I wouldn't worry about skeptics (psuedoskeptics actually) and naysayers. I've noticed many of them on this board are emotionally immature. In my opinion, the credibilty of these kinds of people go right out the door. And you know what? It really doesn't matter. Do you need others to validate your experiences, ideas, or thoughts? If you do I would suggest you work on your self-esteem instead of trying to prove something to them. BTW, I mean "you" in general terms, not specifically.

And while the internet is a great communication tool, it is also another big filter. We don't have paralanguage to gauge with (which has been estimated 80% of communication is paralanguage). So try to take what the other emotionally mature people are saying with a grain of salt before declaring a nuclear FLAME war.

Happy Turkey Day Everyone!

Originally posted by TheRealDonPedros
reply to post by C.H.U.D.

 

Thats a pretty big stretch to say a steam locomotive is "running" on water. Its inefficiently burning coal to heat the water which in turn creates steam that pumps the pistons.

So if the steam runs the engine and steam is a gaseous property of water..... ok I don't understand your logic, please explain.

I don't know how related this is and it may very well get removed; however, I am going to say it anyway.

You are in fact quite correct in that you cannot prove that which does not exist. Here is what I don't understand about that though. There have been numerous people try to prove the existence of God, I completely understand this, it is a logical scientific progression. What I don't understand is scientists and supposed people of great genius trying to disprove the existence of God. This ties in directly to your statement. If you are an educated scientist, surely you know that you cannot find proof for nonexistence. Why would you even try knowing it to be a fruitless search, UNLESS of course there was in fact some doubt in your own mind and either consciously or subconsciously you are in fact seeking proof of existence and not seeking proof of nonexistence.

Does that make any sense?

reply to post by whoshotJR


I agree completely. Anything is possible, it only has to be proven, and if that breaks a few physical laws (that are far from perfect) then so be it.
THE INTERNET TextISTextTHE NEW REVOLUTION because
it enables us FREE and UNCENSORED COMMUNICATION.
For the first time in history we are at a point where we can talk freely to each other without regimes or social or religous barriers-or our own
governments-from interfering.
I don't know how long this will last, so we must make the most of it.
TALK TO EACH OTHER. COMMUNICATE and above all let people see what's
REALLY going on......

reply to post by zysin5

We can know**
We just can't know as a matter of fact, basically there is nothing that can really change what I believe or know (if I choose to only believe what I know) It seems like it keeps coming down to subjectivity and what I think vs what you think.
Can we proove what an apple taste like?
maybe give very discriptive and acceptable notions to what it taste like, but what I taste, will always be different then what you taste, what i see will always bee different then from what you see, hear, smell, feel, - I am my reality - you are yours, we are sharing the experience and knowledge to only adjust our own reality.
the key word is sharing.*

whoshotJR, you have stated what I believe is the fundamental purpose of ATS.

I suspect this site has been hijacked. Yes it's good to keep an eye on the ground, but to stand there stubbornly shouting that something "is not possible so people should stop wasting their time" is precisely the type of destructive narrow mindedness that ATS is supposed to be a refuge from.
I suspect this site has been hijacked because there are plenty of other sites which are far more suited to such a brick wall mentality.

If it's not a hijack, then people who mess up this site with a "nothing not supported by a corporation or a western government is possible" outlook are wasting their's and other ATS members' time.

Let's not be blinded from truth. But let's not shut people down just because we don't believe them, even if we're on the side of common belief.

As an engineer we're taught that mathematics and science will prove/disprove everything.

A poster here said that there exists two types of people here at ATS whom are Either :

1.) Logical and rational, ie skeptics.
OR
2.) Illogical and willing to believe anything.

I beg to differ. I was educated to base and formulate any and all hypotheses upon scientific proof.
BUT, I feel that that is fine and plausible within the constraints of said paradigm.

But what if ? What if we only limit or constrain ourselves based upon the limitations/constraints of that particular paradigm ?

Take for instance, Aircraft.
Prior to the Wright Brothers it was "common" knowledge that heavier than air aircraft were impossible according to leading physicists. Our leading geniuses of the time such as Issac Newton, the father of Physics hadn't proven this to be otherwise so common knowledge labeled it as being duly impossible.

But that was solely based upon and within the constraints of the "common" aircraft belief system or paradigm at the time, which consisted of hot air balloons.
As well as, I might add, the many dead pilots whose attempts at heavier than air aircraft had been unsuccessful .

Another example of this is Thomas Edison's DC power vs Nikola Tesla's AC power.
The common belief being that DC electricity was better and safer than AC due to the high voltages AC used (albeit with very low current) vs the relatively low voltages that DC electric power did.

This is what people were told and also assumed to be true. The key word being assumed. They were ignorant.

What they weren't being told is that DC actually requires higher current to transmit over distances and it's actually the current that kills you and not necessarily the voltage. Thats why we use AC electricity today over DC.

In summary:
My point being you can't merely label individuals belief systems as being comprised of either as simply being Black or White.
Know it all or Dumb a##e#.

For if we didn't occasionally think outside of the box, we'd still be riding in Blimps for air travel and due to the limitations of DC power we'd still be using Kerosene lamps to light our homes.

Remember our motto here at ATS .... Deny Ignorance.

Happy Thanksgiving !!

reply to post by whoshotJR


No one is 100% anything, ever.

Second line.

reply to post by lifeform


Although it does ensure slow progress but it assures a safe journey. At the end of the day it puts food on the table, where the other modes are less consistent. However, encouraging creativity within the established social framework provides the most consistent output for ingenuity, whereas being absolutely creative usually results in chaos. All I can say is that as a modern society we need all types of people, and that we should respect them as they are.

Good post sir! What more can i say? Flagged!

reply to post by whoshotJR

I agree with the OP.  Also, while I think people need to hold less judgment towards conspiracy theories, I think it is equally important for people not to say, "Prove to me I am wrong!"

As the OP said, you can't prove a negative.  It is ridiculous to ask for others to prove a fringe theory incorrect, when it is impossible to prove something does not exist.  Instead, the people making the assertions need to face the fact that their theory is only speculation, so that everyone else viewing the thread isn't quite as offended.

I don't mind speculation or theory, but I do mind wild accusations posed as fact.

[edit on 27-11-2008 by Irish M1ck]

reply to post by ignorant_ape


Sorry, but you hit one of my major pet peeves there. "Extraordinary claims" do NOT require extraordinary evidence, to a skeptic by the classical definition, as referenced by the OP. They would require -exactly the same amount- of evidence as 'ordinary claims.' The difficulty only comes in providing such evidence.

Saying water comes out of your tap isn't questioned because most people in sufficiently technologically advanced housing have a tap that has water coming out of it. Most people will be believers who accept that as a given, while anyone skeptical would want to see for themselves. Saying you have a Hawaiian Punch tap is questioned, so you'll have fewer believers and more skeptics. The evidence needed isn't different, just the number of people who won't believe until they see the evidence.

Originally posted by juveous
reply to post by zysin5

 

We can know**
Can we proove what an apple taste like?
The experience and knowledge to only adjust our own reality.
the key word is sharing.*

Thanks for your reply.. Any input is good input into a thread like this.

We can know.. Sure that statement is true enough.. We can know what it is to us. But what is it really at the base root we do not know.

We can each know what an apple tastes like.. However like you said each person is different. While the exp may be similar. Its not all together the same for each person.
While I like Green apples, I dont like Red Mushy apples.

You are right about sharing. Each of us is in a type of battle over our own reality Tunnles.. That term was coined by none other than ROBERT ANTON WILSON. A brillant man.. Who spoke much all the way up to his death about such things.. I suggest anyone who has not researched this man, take some time and do a little homework about this man and his work.. His work has lead me up to where I am today.. And with Bob gone, there are those of us who have taken it upon ourselfs to pick up the torch, and carry on his work.
here is a video I will post that explains this in detail..

WHO IS THE MASTER? who makes the grass green?



We are all here in this matrix if you will.. There is a table in the room. And it is there for each one of us.
Even the blind man who can not see.. The table is still there.
However what is the table? What makes the table what it is?

Sure its easy to say its wood, and someone crafted the table.
However lets get deeper, down to the base atoms of this table.

If we are to go that far, then that table shouldnt be there.. Yet it is for each one of us.
Some of us may like the table, while others may not like the table.
Some would say this or that about the table..
Reguardless the table is taking up space in our shared matrix.

Yet this is only evidence of something greater at work here.
This is only evidence that atoms are somehow put together to make this object.. Or is it us who makes this table what it is?

Thats the problem, we do not know the base root of all things..
And hence is why we can never prove anything 100%

Sure we can say I have proven that this table is here.. Yet when you get down to the level of an atom.. That table is only make of atoms that have alot of empty space between them.. And only when we as what and who we are observe this energy.. It becomes..

Hmmmm interesting to say the least.. I am starting to lose my train of thought, becasue its easy to get mixed up, and misunderstand what Im saying..

So sure, we can say yes we have proof of many things.. Yet when it comes down to the base root, we are back to square one..

But its better to just live and love, have a little fun with your life, and dont try to stress to much about such things, it will drive you mad.. hehe much like me.. I am driven mad daily by such deep questions.

But nether the less, its stuff we have to keep asking, and keep trying to get to the base root of all things..
Yet I dont think we are ready yet.. We are still trapped within our tiny parameters.. And I think its for our own good right now..
The human mind, is set for a logical loop. Its how our brains work right now. And even that is unkown, why our minds work like this?
Why do we think that way? Some of us do, some of us dont..
But no matter who you are, we all try to use a little comman sense when it comes to some things. But this far goes beyond simple comman sense.
As there is nothing comman about this subject matter..
Its all very deep.. And its what I love the most about ATS!

[edit on 27-11-2008 by zysin5]

I know people with compelling evidence in several fields, (Ufology, cryptozoology, paranormal studies, occult studies) that refuse to make evidence public because they don't want to deal with the critics and the unwanted difficulties that follow disclosure. I was stalked mercilessly by a rather unstable individual after a posting I made on C2C. Even had this person open an email with my name and send messages to me, tried to pose as me on forums etc.
Many of my fellow associates refuse to disclose evidence. Not worth it anymore. I don't feel like I need to share or discuss things publicly. It's enough that I know.

reply to post by whoshotJR

It takes faith to believe and also Not to believe.Unbelief in something can be described as negative faith....faith nonetheless just pointed in the "wrong direction"

Having an open-minded critical discussion on any topic, be it water-powered engines or the possibility of life after death, should be free from name calling or abuse of any kind. It is counter-productive and can be debilitating to the actual discussion itself.

I have said it before, however I shall no doubt repeat myself endlessly on this website: If you cannot disprove an idea that is under discussion, and yet make an absolute judgement that it is impossible or does not exisit; you are in effect narrow-minded and will only accept the ideas that fit comfortably within your own preconceived ideas of the nature of the universe. Thus you are only going to come as close to the 'truth' of a thing, as you can comfortably allow yourself.

The field of Science itself should be about questioning everything. Studying all relevant information, and allowing ideas to germinate and grow. All Science comes down to is theories (ideas) that are proven or disproven through experimentation and careful study.
Sure, some ideas will be disproved, some will be unlikely in your point of view, some will be incredibly difficult to prove; however some won't.

A discussion on the possibility of something, regardless of "evidence" should be approached from both angles. The unspoken agreement in the discussion is that you are all prepared to accept the idea that it could be possible.

To express doubt about an idea is not a personal attack, but a stated opinion. Truly it should be stated that you find it unlikely or improbable.

However making assumptions about a person's character or lurid suggestions about their pharmaceutical habits I find to be offensive in the extreme. How is that a contribution to critically analysing an idea? You are not cross-examining in a court of law, a suspected serial killer.

It does not hurt you to be respectfully courteous at all times. But it can hurt someone else for you not to be.