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.
Originally posted by RFBurns
Quite the contrary. You call it negative proof, we call it simple data to further enhance the opposite point of view. If you want to call it negative proof that a skeptic must provide, that only tells me that your behind the 8 ball wondering if you can hit it into the corner pocket with no que ball or stick. In other words, your far behind the game and need to play catch up.
Again I have provided the core reason why it cannot be proven to be either a odd shaped rock or an actual artifical object, and that is using actual scientific data, not conjecture or opinion or speculation. We simply do not have the necessary data to be conclusive either way.
I refer to the over 15 years of participating in many forums.
So ATS is specific and caters to skeptics that do not need to provide anything other than their own personal opinion? Hardly friend, hardly.
To deny ignorance you need to be knowledgable, and in order to be knowledgable, you need the data to back up that knowledge.
I can sit here and make claims left and right, and not a single one of those claims would mean a bowl of beans without data. A skeptic who claims that someone else's claim is not real or untrue, without providing any collaborating data to back that up, has no basis to make such a statement or even be considered at all.
There is no burden of proof issue. Believers have always posted something, a picture, a theory, an example, something to use as their backup to attempt to prove their belief. However, and quite unfortunate, that is not always the case with the opposing point of view.
For a skeptic to claim that something someone has posted is untrue or unreal...it is expected for them to show WHY it is untrue or unreal. And if a skepitc is so sure of their statement, there is no reason why they cannot provide that data to back up their claim. Saying something isnt real or untrue is a claim, just as someone saying this is real and true, that too is a claim.
You use burden of proof as a one way ticket to give yourself a quick exit to the task of proving your point. Its an old worn out playing card. What is very ironic is that instead of providing evidence to the contrary, one just throws out rant after rant, repetitive use of old excuses such as burden of proof
Originally posted by Blaine91555
I should say that I'm on your side. Nothing would thrill me more than to open a thread and find a smoking gun image of a genuine artifact on Mars.
Thank you for looking. I know it can be very time consuming and tedious. It is appreciated.
Originally posted by Wormwood Squirm
Here is another example for you that shows that is just a natural break of the rock - common:
Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by ArMaP
Your image also shows the continuous ridge on the bottom. I don't understand why you cant see it. It is not hidden?
Originally posted by thrashee
Look, I know you think it would groovy if skeptics provided "counter" evidence, I know you think this would make things more fair or more interesting. And hey, I understand that. It's why I tried rationally explaining that even if we don't know either way, there is still a more rational choice. But, I hate to be callous, no matter how much you want to ignore this burden of truth issue, it's simple fact. Regardless of how much you don't like it, there it still is.
Originally posted by Anomic of Nihilism
reply to post by Blaine91555
In the first post dude. The one that says External link
Second line
AoN
[edit on 10-2-2009 by Anomic of Nihilism]
Originally posted by RFBurns
Science has nothing to do with being rational dude. Science is based on data. Cold, hard data, to which you have yet to provide any data, just personal opinion about how real scientific analysis is done. If science did things your way, we would still be riding horses and living without modern convienience.
The burden of truth falls onto those who run around thinking they know it all yet show very little of what they actually do know, but pour out endless words and dress it all up so it sounds like they do have something other than rocks in their head.
Right here, right now in this thread, there are skeptics putting forth data that provides another prospective on the original claim. They dont seem to be having a problem with providing data to support their counter claim...so what makes you so special that you think you are immune to doing the same?
Originally posted by thrashee
Actually, rational thought is applied all throughout science, but ok...that wasn't my point. I was simply stating that I did provide something: a rational explanation of why this being a wrench is improbable. You stated I didn't offer anything but a cop out call on burden of truth, so I was responding to that.
Originally posted by thrashee
In other words, the burden of truth falls upon whoever you don't like in a given discussion, or whoever you think is spouting what to you is nonsense. How wonderfully subjective a criteria that is!
Originally posted by thrashee
Unfortunately, you're still wrong. Whoever makes a claim assumes the burden. It's frankly as simple as that. Whether I'm the coolest skeptic in the world or the meanest doesn't make a lick of a difference here.
Originally posted by thrashee
I'm immune by virtue of the fact that I'm not positing some claim here. I hate to keep beating a dead horse, but this goes back to burden of truth. Just because you don't seem to like the fact that I'm pointing out what's logical and rational doesn't mean all of a sudden I must present cold, hard data to support a claim I never made. Not how it works. And as I said, I did contribute something: a rational explanation of which scenario is more probable, and a free lesson in logic 101 to boot!