God bless you, Sky. Star & Flag. Not sure how I missed this thread last month. I sarcastically refer to such members as the 'Proof Proof Proof Brigade.'

In my opinion, 'evidence' is a much better word to use as well as a more obtainable goal especially when it comes to conspiracies, the paranormal, and the supernatural... the main subjects dealt with on ATS. It's irritating to see intelligent posters treated like idiots when they discuss concepts, phenomenon, and information only to be expected to meet the 'proof' bar which of course is alway unobtainable to the ones spouting the proof requirement. Undo refers to it as the 'ever extending evidentiary horizon.'

Much more to say but that is the gist of it. It's obnoxious and kills the discussion on speculative topics. This thread is my new sig. lol

[edit on 11/15/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by Threadfall
so god forbid a person asks for an iota of evidence,

Not necessarily. It's one thing to ask for support, sources, links, etc. to claims. It's another thing entirely to try to shut down a discussion on something like ghosts, deities, life after death, or conspiracies by bombarding every thread you enter with 'There's no proof!' As if we have to prove something exists before we are allowed to even think about engaging in a discussion on it. Big difference.

The thing that humors me is that the people who have a reputation for doing this (a couple specific members come to mind) may think they have the patent on logic and reason. However, they look like utter close minded fools to almost everyone else. They're spouting of something that they believe makes them look like they have critical thinking skills. However, it's actually embarrasses me for them.

Sky - Have you read the book "The Black Swan; the impact of the highly improbable"? - I just received it in the Mail today and starting reading it - This thread immediately caught my attention when I logged on, and in the OP your thoughts really mirrored some that were in this book. - great post

The dictionary on "Evidence":

The most immediate form of evidence available to an individual is the observations of that person's own senses.

For example an observer wishing for evidence that the sky is blue need only look at the sky. However this same example illustrates some of the difficulties of evidence as well: someone who was blue-yellow color-blind, but did not know it, would have a very different perception of what color the sky was than someone who was not. Even simple sensory perceptions (qualia) ultimately are subjective; guaranteeing that the same information can be considered somehow true in an objective sense is the main challenge of establishing standards of evidence. there is also the question of what is meant by 'blue', and how we measure it. (If determined by a particular wave-length of colour - then how do we actually measure this?) there is also the question of how evidence 'translates' e.g. is 'blau' in German universally translated as 'blue' in English: Germans may have different words for different parts of the spectrum; thus 'evidence' is a social construction.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
________________________________

To a few others: The fact that you take this thread to be a thread against asking proof or a thread against skeptics again displays the amount of stupidity run rampant here.

This is NOT a skeptic-bashing thread. It is about the morons who interrupt when people are enjoying themselves speculating about various aspects of life.

Well then, as a Mod you should be particularly sensitive to deceptive thread titles that are essentially tantamount to trolling. You have to take part of the blame here...as I have already pointed out. While you have a legitimate point to make, you've hung it on an ill-considered tag. If you want to change the nature of the discourse, then change the title.

Otherwise, you don't have a lot to complain about.

Originally posted by whiskeyswiller
I agree with you, no one should ask for proof or be skeptical at all and we should all blindly accept things and not think critically.

The moon is made out of blue cheese and no one can disagree with me so i just think everything is so much better without thought or testing or truth.

No one should ever ask for proof or point out there is no proof.

That'd be silly.

I think you, and zeroknowledge in the following post missed the point completely.

There is a huge difference of asking for proof and ignoring the evidence that the posters generally make. Now, yes, there are posts where statements are made with zero substance to back them up. They are simply 'statements' of personal opinion at that point. That is NOT what the OP is touching on here.

There is a blind arrogance by the self proclaimed skeptic on here and in the world that, without regard for the evidence being presented, fall back on the absolute proof and fact argument which is actually quite weak. If you have 'PROOF' that what the person is stating is false then you should provide that proof or simply stay out of the discussion.

Asking questions of the poster and trying to work through the discussion is actually what this site is about. Not by showing your brilliance and skeptical brain by blindly throwing everything that isn't within your realm of reality out the window simply because it doesn't fit.

Granted, there are times and circumstances where this is probably a good approach. I know as well as you that there are MANY subjects on this site that are just plain crazy. Then again, so was man flying through the skies on mechanical beasts. That was stated as 'NO WAY IT CAN HAPPEN' in the late 1800's by the 'LEADING SCIENTISTS and PHYSICISTS' of the day. That is why the Wright brothers were never allowed to demo before these genius' of the age. They didn't want their view of reality challenged by these men that have done what they have publicly stated over and over as impossible. That we were 10,000 years from being able to do it.

Okay, we all know what the FACT is now but back there the fact was that it was impossible.

In other words, you need to open your mind a bit and, without blindly accepting things and not thinking critically, have a discussion with these people and see WHY they believe what they believe. Then maybe you can challenge it logically.

No one is asking for a skeptic to give up all thought on subjects. Just to stop being ignorant of the 'what if' that we keep learning as 'what is' every single day.

Of course there's also the "It's can't be true because I don't believe in..."

We cry for evidence that something is real, how about evidence for things not being real? We're currently hearing rumours and hints at an upcoming disclosure about the existence of extraterrestrials. Of course, the big question on my mind is whether or not what we'll see on our televisions will be true or fabricated, but it does lead to an interesting question. If aliens "come out" and the populace at large comes to accept their existence as a fact and not a theory or possibility, how will that global change of acceptence impact the ancient astronaut theory? If we do have Obamarama on television introducing us to our first ET, if the alien starts to fit the descriptions given in Sumerian and other ancient carvings all around the world, like us but on a bigger scale (kinda sounds fractal, doesn't it?), if they have technology that can cause rocks to "grow" into buildings and statues, I'm sure there'll be some interesting threads started on here.

Worse still is "I don't believe it because I don't understand it". Now I don't understand the Timewave curve. How exactly did McKenna quantify "novelty"? It's a very vague, could be good, could be bad, not sure what it is kind of thing, but I don't allow my absolute lack of mathematical skill to blind me to the fact that we live in a highly fractal, highly mathematical universe. If I were to take the Oct 25th event, for example, many people decided in their own heads that Novelty=Doom and have decided the entire project is now a hoax because events didn't occur in the manner they had pre-decided they must in order for the timewave to be true. That's like denying to believe your parents bought you a birthday present because they didn't give you exactly what you wanted.

I believe we live in a fractal universe. If we look at ourselves, we are all identical, and yet we are all unique. We are also infinitely complex. Look at the basic structure of a sperm cell. It's essentially a ball with a tail, a sphere with an extrusion. Now imagine a scan photo of a fetus. We see the head and the spine. A ball and a tail. When I draw a person, I was taught to start by drawing an oval for the head, and then carry the line down to follow the spine, and that is our basic form if you look at a skeleton from the side. Our head is obvious and pronounced, and followed by the tail of our spines. Now look at your earlobe, and the spine of your ear. This also links into reflexology, a little understood medical practise that some believe relies on the fractal composition of our bodies. We can carry on. Nose, nostrils, brows, our eyes as seen from the side, our tongue, our teeth, our arms, legs, fingers, toes, even our genitals, are all made up from that same recurring shape. And if we pull out a strand of hair? We see at the end of the extrusion of hair the ball of the root, looking very much like the sperm cell we all started with. Many of the organs in our body, our circulatory system, our lungs, all are constructed fractally.

Fractals are infinitely complex. To my (admittedly biased) mind, the very nature of fractals screams at us that if we are all identical but unique, we're not the seed fractal, we're each an aspect of the fractal, meaning there must be other levels of the fractal above us. There must be more advanced versions of our fractal design, larger in scale, taller, stronger, longer lived, more powerful. There must also, way up the levels, be the original seed fractal, the all-encompassing expression of the fractal that every level below is made up in.

The universe is a wonderous place. Don't refuse to consider possibilities just because you can't explain or prove it.

I do believe that skeptics should avoid making non constructive arguments against topics being discussed by strong believers. It is much better to let the discussion develop and maybe eventually a theory will begin to develop that will lend itself to the proof of the conspiracy.

This tractor seems to have conveniently dodged the gigantic boulder in the middle of the field though. I would have appreciated seeing an acknowlegedment that sometimes conspiracy theories are presented in a deceptive way. I think that is the purpose for skeptical remarks that ask for evidence.

Its not tyranny, they are just brought up that way. They think they are being rational by ignoring everything there is no scientific evidence for. The irony is that as soon as NASA or someone "credible" says it, its accepted right away as The Truth. They are very receptive to propaganda without realising it.

History shows that people are usually misled by their governments and made to believe things that are not true.


[edit on 7-11-2009 by Copernicus]

So your implying that just because we think it, it makes it so.

I find that disturbing. And the different kinds of proof you are talking about have very many levels.

There is outright suspician that needs outright proof. Such and such politician is a satanist. Unless you have pictures or quotes that the person is, then that is nothing but slander and the stuff of tabloids.

You better hope that if someone accusses you of sexual harrassment in the workplace, they better have proof.

Then there is the grey areas like the JFK assassination. There is no proof it was a conspiracy. But there is plenty of circumstantial evidence such as the wounds, bullet trajectories, the magic bullet, and the hidden autopsy files and quick burial.

And experienced and intelligent members are able to see the circumstantial evidence.

But to sit here and imply that people are morons for actually challenging people to provide a shred of evidence to backup their claims, is really quite disturbing.

As I always state, conspiracy members on this site need to hold each others ideas and content to a high standard. It will face the same scrutiny by the public. If we can't convince each other, then how do we convince a public that is already dead set against it.

But according to your post, we shouldn't have any standard at all.

I think we need to set maybe like some ground rules on what is considered evidence, proof, and heresay. Like if I have a video of a reporter, telling that wtc 7 building has gone down 20 minutes before it actually goes down and you can see the building still up in the background, well then now we might have some evidence. If you think that government is giving your freedoms away through laws and treaties and you provide some of those laws and everyone can go find those laws for themselves, well you might be touching down on some proof. However, anything that is stated with nothing backing it, is nothing, but an opinion and should be taken as such. I agree that if you're going to argure bring something to the table other then no proof, because I can only provide evidence; proof is an absolute and if I could prove the "NWO" or whatever you feel like calling it exsisted I would have already staged a take over of CNN and all other major news stations and shown everyone my proof. As "the proof" would free everyone lol...

Originally posted by agentofchaos
I think we need to set maybe like some ground rules on what is considered evidence, proof, and heresay. Like if I have a video of a reporter, telling that wtc 7 building has gone down 20 minutes before it actually goes down and you can see the building still up in the background, well then now we might have some evidence.

You would have evidence that yet another reporter is an idiot.

I take it after this long this pathetic thread is still yet further evidence that there is not, indeed, any proof.

Good job, OP. No, really.