It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Definite Definitions: Proof and Evidence

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Definite definitions: Proof and Evidence:

Words such as proof, evidence, truth, propaganda, and lies are common words on ATS. Many times, members claim to have 'proof' and 'evidence', and maybe even the 'truth'. Many people go out of their way to look at a thread claiming 'truth' and 'proof', when it is some link to somewhere, a youtube video, or a quote. Many cases, there is no actual 'proof', 'evidence', or 'truth', but it might actually be more 'propaganda' and 'lies'.

I want to make this a place where members can come and see what it means to claim to have 'evidence' and 'proof'. I want to know also what ATS thinks of 'proof' and 'evidence'.

I want to here us as a members definitions too, to clear it up when we 'claim' to have 'proof' or 'evidence'.

My definitions:

Proof: factual truth that is widely accepted with evidence backing it up, and so that the evidence is widely accepted and accessible; A collection of evidence backing up a theory, and proving it.

Evidence: A part of Proof; a fact that is truth; a factual claim

Yup, that's right, I will not accept it as proof unless it is a widely believed in theory

I call out to other members to examine themselves before claiming they have 'truth' 'proof' or 'evidence'. It is a drawing, more people look at things claiming they have truth.

I also want to hear from other members about their 'proofs' and 'evidences' and how they define it.

*A Note To Staff*
It might be helpful if in the ATS handbook or thread that contains some important definitions for new members and for veterans.




posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Well by your definitions 99.9 % of threads should be in skunkworks




posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Sorry if I didn't explain completely by what I meant, and if it was unclear.

I just think it is inappropriate that members claim that the have '100% PROOF OF UFOS!!!!' topics such as that and others in their title name. It is misleading, and discouraging for some. Thinking for a few more seconds, you can come up with a more appropriate tittle and give your thread a new meaning by such as. 'Discussion of Evidence [Proof] found' or something that isn't complete out lying. It irritates me, and it must to others to see members who do irrational things such as that. I don't know, but that it irritates me on their obvious misconception and arrogance of the topic.

I can't tell you what other members think, but I think that they may not like it either. Just thrown that out there.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by truth_seeker3
...I just think it is inappropriate that members claim that the have '100% PROOF OF UFOS!!!!' topics such as that and others in their title name. It is misleading, and discouraging for some. ...


Discouraging for whom? Let's hang you with your own noose. Do you have PROOF that it is discouraging for some? Have people actually said something along the lines of "You said you have proof, but there isn't any. I am discouraged"? If so, can you point out the internal links? If not, why are you saying something is true, if it is not PROVEN true. Like hypocrisy much?


I think when people have done that, apart from disinfo agents looking to discredit anyone who says they have proof, what they really mean is: "This evidence, for me, is the 'straw that broke the camel's back'. I consider this to be the last bit of evidence I need to consider subject X proven beyond doubt."

But yes, I will agree that words are sometimes morphed and twisted on this site to mean whatever the person saying them means.

Don't be TOO quick to accept the scientific standard of "proof" as conclusive. After all, it took the Wright Brothers several YEARS to "prove" to THE LEADING SCIENTISTS OF THEIR DAY that they had actually flown a heavier than air vehicle. Scientists kept saying that they were hoaxers, and it was a trick, etc. And that is a historical FACT.


So, because it was not "widely held" that the Wright Brothers flew their first flight in Kitty Hawk, NC, should we change the date of man's first powered flight?

[edit on 14-9-2008 by sir_chancealot]



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by sir_chancealot
 


Thanks for that. History is truly:

1. In the eyes of the beholder
2. Written by the winners, and my favorite,

a set of lies that we can all agree upon.

True, it may not be discouraging for some, but I took it as common knowledge that people are most of the time, 'discouraged' by lies.


sometimes morphed and twisted on this site to mean whatever the person saying them means.


I think that is what I'm trying to get on to. Many people come from different backgrounds, languages, cultures, and have our own personal meaning to some words. Also, people twist words and sentences in their favor.

It would be convenient that ATS would have a 'ATS Dictionary' where members can find ATS standards to common words used on ATS such as proof, evidence, and so on.

Tinwiki does that somewhat, but something more definitive would be cool.




top topics
 
0

log in

join