why should you demand evidence from the op ?

This is an interesting topic one that I myself have thought many times. But you must also consider that even when an OP has "evidence", it is not always conclusive evidence, which leads the skeptics to question the evidence, which usually makes the OP feel as thogh he is being personally attacked and instead of thinking it through and posting evidence to back up his post, he finds back up information that does not directly relate to the post. This calls for the skeptic(s) to ask a few more questions, to which the OP takes as more personal attacks and then you end up with name calling and a large argumentitive thread.

So if the OP would just back up his post with solid evidence, the threads would most likely be shorter and not deviate as much from the topics.

reply to post by inthemistandfog

---

It's simple, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claims.




Burden of proof

Its not that simple... once a person HAS laid his evidence on the table then it is up to the opposing side to show with evidence WHY that may or may not be true...

But mostly the opposing side returns with personal attacks, name calling and diverting the original question...

If all there is is an eyewitness testimony then we have to judge that testimony on its own merit... and the credibility of the story...

A poor farmer with no formal education sees a ufo over his fields, describes it as best he can with his limited skills.. we call him a fool...

An airline pilot sees a ufo in the clouds... we say well he is a credible witness...

yet NASA report says many pilots fly drunk... but because they are a pilot they have more credibility

Ezekiel saw some wheels in the sky... That story had no evidence yet its been accepted widely...

The Bible is full of stories by a single eyewitness with no physical proof... yet its accepted as God's word

We only listen to 'truth' that we want to hear... all else is discarded... some have even resorted to book burning to maintain their version of 'truth'

But when a majority accepts the new 'truth' then the detractors become the loudest supporters



"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer
German philosopher (1788 - 1860)





[edit on 6-8-2008 by zorgon]

reply to post by zorgon

---

good examples

I agree - it's easy to sound reasonable when the majority is already with you

demanding proof from the person making the claim to make your own argument won't work - you have to offer up your own evidence - in order to really disprove their original claim

you have to be able to actually demonstrate that what they say is false - not just say it's false

and the example:



means - the burden of proof lies with the one complaining that the original claim is not accurate

reply to post by zorgon

---

You don't do to well with this thing called "reading" do you? For Pete's sake look at the TITLE OF THE THREAD.

It presupposes a hypothetical where an OP doesn't present evidence to support his/her claims. Read the title of this thread dude.

What I said is 100% true, the person making the original claim (the OP), has the burden of proof to support their claim.

Unbelievable. Do you follow me around these forums with the sole purpose to disagree with whatever I post??

reply to post by NOTurTypical

---

did you read beyond the title?

the OP is asking - why should you?

he's making a statement about how demanding proof can interfere with a good thread - not that we have a right to demand proof from the OP

I demand hard evidence and through the notion of establishing criterior for the particular "ghost story", will we ever gain such hard evidence. There is probably always going to be that battle, need v.s. length v.s. truth. Most who provide at least pictures, I'd rather see that as a base criterion, at least we get something.

It's a "ghost story" so where's the proof? Or is it neccessary because it's a "ghost story". How are we to establish this criterion. A hoaxer, to tell a good "ghost story", should not require proof. You would feel better if the story were told well, toward it 's entertainment quality, lack of any proof, a key.

I think we get hooked on that fact of whether evidence is required in the relevation of "ghost stories". They are meant to be intriguing because of their topic, the OP I guess, would like to mystify the reader.

When someone does the research required they are usually congradulated so those who provide less get less. This present system probably will not get any further adjustment.

Topic binding would be good, those that consist of such proof as "self-validating". The "i saw it", proof, "me and someone else saw it", proof.
Topic binding based on believability. I read a comment where they thought that might make them miss a good "ghost story".


[edit on 6-8-2008 by rightwingnut]

[edit on 6-8-2008 by rightwingnut]

reply to post by rightwingnut

---

then we go back to the question that was asked earlier... "What constitutes evidence?"

even if a witness to an extrodinary event took every pesudoskeptic on ATS and banged their head against the hull of the extra terrestrial craft the skeptic would still come up with some way to not see whats standing before them.

so i guess in essence its useless to post in a thread "wheres your evidence" when someone posts something thats out of the ordinary the better way to debunk them perhapse is to ask questions about their incedent and hilight inconsistancies within their story and let others draw what ever conclusions they wish from that.

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

---

Ok, so you and the OP are stating that evidence should not be asked for since the word of an OP should be enough.

Well let's say I state I am an immortal and have lived for 1000+ years, would you just believe that on faith or would you want proof to back it up, of course you would want proof and that turns you into a skeptic.

If you tell me that you would not want proof, then do you still believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy, because I would realy like to meet them.

I think I have seen you in maybe 2 threads so far and responded to you what 3 times?

Someone needs a vacation...

whats the point of asking for evidence? dont you think if they had it they woulda supplied it? sheesh!

so what your saying is theres a myriad of people making claims thinking hehehe im going to hold onto this evidence untill i get 5 pages of posts asking for evidence mwahahahaha i r 1337

if you were to make such a statment i guess most would ignore you as you have made such a ridiculous post now

I think the author of this topic tried to liberalize their belief in the need for proof. The hoaxer can supply enjoyable reading with the fiction. The problem is that the skeptic is hooked on disproving it and so counter- evidence must be supplied by the skeptic.

Many points are made about the space and therfore time to veiw all of the comments about a topic. If oversight can "topic bind" on a basis of beleivability this would help.

Pictures in this forum are great evidence. I understand your comment about someone's blatent ignorance and argument for argument sake. However the enjoyment factor has to be in some general rule so that interference with truth is barred. So the battle of words continues, I should have the right to speak. The skeptic wants the hoaxer barred. How do we enhance the enjoyment factor out of those drawn sides.

If I printed something false I would want you to enjoy it more, than to rip it to shreads or the personal attack. The hoaxer is a jester, now how can we make a section which caters to hoaxers so that the interference is minimalized? Topic,(endless blog)"all hoaxers post here"??


[edit on 7-8-2008 by rightwingnut]

reply to post by AlienCarnage

---

"well let's say I state I am an immortal and have lived for 1000+ years, would you just believe that on faith or would you want proof to back it up"

You wouldn't be able to prove such a thing over the internet.

Just like you can't prove aliens exist over the internet.

You can only do so much with a monitor mouse and keyboard

reply to post by Demandred

---

Then they shouldn't post. They should wait until they have evidence, if there is no possible way for them to otain evidence than don't even consider posting unless they state it is their opinion or something to that fact in thier post. Because without evidence it is just another story or opinion and should not be taken as anything more than this.

reply to post by TruthTellist

---

Then people who post shouldn't state things in absolutes and expect no one to question them. They should post things as if it were a story and nothing more. Not try convince someone of their OP being an absolute proof of whatever. Let those who read their post determine for themselves. In this day and age even a realy good looking photo can be doctored, hell even physical proof can be faked by anyone realy good at making movie like props.Threads should be start "Interesting story of Supposed of Alien Visiting . .", not "Evidence of Alien Visiting . .". Of couse my vrsion wouldn't suck in someone who would normally pass by that thread.

[edit on 8/7/2008 by AlienCarnage]

that's good

I have to say - I WANT To Believe

2nd - of course I'd like proof - I'd LOVE proof

although - at some point, after we get proof - we might be disappointed because all the fun is over

what I'm trying to say (but not very well) is

the people demanding evidence - seriously - WTH?

by whose authority?

if experiences - aren't enough anymore - and the only thing that buys you a ticket into the discussion is "evidence" - it's going to be a short, boring - and irritating discussion

and, while demanding evidence may give the impression that there is some sort of authority there - there isn't - there's none

it's just a person who's demanding evidence - sounding a little more like Barney Fife than someone who's actually interested in gathering information and having an intelligent discussion

this is a forum - not a court of law

we'd all love the evidence - get in line

I was already in the process of replying to you - on something else - when I realized you'd replied to me

what I was responding to was your comments about th OP just stating whether he's got the goods or not from the beginning - or something like that

genius -

it's simple - no new categories needed - a minimal amount of personal responsibility required -

a disclaimer at the start - "I HAVE NOTHING TO SHOW YOU _ STORY ONLY (if you're interested)"

if you do stick around - don't whine when there aren't any pictures

if you don't have any visual aids - don't claim you do

also - no on Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy - still on the fence with the bunny

reply to post by AlienCarnage

---

granted but 5 pages of people stating "Wheres your evidence?" isnt really questioning the veracity of the Op's claims.

unfortunatley and i know im not the only person who does it, i read page one, i read the last page on rare occassions i might click a page in the middle and try to work out how the discussion has evolved from page 1 to the last page, however its more than likley by doing this we miss alot of quality posts.

it isnt hard to break a claim down into points and question the claimant specifically about each one. as opposed to using a bucket response like "wheres your evidence?" or just claiming outright HOAX !!!

oops.

[edit on 8-8-2008 by rightwingnut]

Originally posted by rightwingnut
reply to post by Demandred

---

That, in my opinion, has been a horrible tribute to the (OP) and their commentors. You should excitedly read the whole thing. Be open minded. Some of it's zaney but that's half the fun. You might like to post but wait until you finish the whole thing. I say it's horrible because unfortunately by not using your mind, a good percentage of the time you become one of the posters you might not agree with in the thread.



[edit on 8-8-2008 by rightwingnut]

reply to post by rightwingnut

---

yea i know /my bad

but lets face it, out of a 20 page thread on a post about a abnormal encounter with no evidence you might find 1 gold nugget per 1-2 pages the rest of the posts are mainly comments that contribute little to the quality of the thread or do nothing to help others make an informed rational decision as to what the Op claims to have witnessed.

its like theres people for what ever reason whos posts mean little more than "(insert name) Waz ere 08 and didnt like this post !" you get enough posts like that in a thread and it becomes a hard slog