It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Any theory is true until proven wrong?

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 06:52 AM

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
So in the entire history of human thought, the vast canon of theories and experiences stretching back into history, you cannot give me a single example that supports your opinion and contradicts mine?

Well, that would kind of suggest that I'm right.

Not if you are actually reading these posts but more on that later. I have actually given you a few examples of why your premise is wrong, you just keep finding reasons to nitpick at why you like some and not others.

You've given me idiotic examples of why what you think I said is wrong, but when asked for an example that contradicts what I actually wrote you're at a loss.

Here's that statement again:

With NOTHING CONFLICTING and there being NO ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION - a theory is by default considered correct

I asked - can you explain to me why you disagree with this?

Probably not since you do not seem to understand the statement.

I think I do. So have a go. Or are you just avoiding answering?

If you are going to waste a post explaining how that is NOT what you think and then present it again as true.

Not what I did. Read again. Or don't. To be honest I'm getting past caring, since you either willfully choose to ignore what I write or misinterpret it for some other reason.

I can explain it again to you but I think more than once is already too many times for someone so much smarter than myself. Try rereading why I already explained I do not agree. I am going to guess you are missing something.

Okay. You wrote

Bsbray said "With nothing conflicting and there being no alternative explanation - by default it is considered to be correct"

TotS said "Actually it is."

Am I following along so far?

With NOTHING CONFLICTING and there being NO ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION - something is by default true.

Do you understand what that means?

Obviously this makes no sense, as bsbray didn't write that, and I never wrote "actually it is", as explained above. But the gist of what you're saying is that

- the statement is "With NOTHING CONFLICTING and there being NO ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION - something is by default true."

- tots agrees with this (correct)

- that's ridiculous (according to you)

Nowhere do you explain your thinking or point out where I'm wrong. You haven't "already explained" it. Indeed you even end your series of assertions with a question!

So that is why you keep ignoring the medical theories I have offered? Obviously an invisible dragon is a little silly. How about you tell me how your statement is at all true in the realm of the cause of ulcers.

Here is what you are saying -

'What causes ulcers?'

- I think it is a parasite based on my interpretation of the results from testing so far.

Okay, your theory is that it's a parasite.


- Have any conflicting evidence to my parasite theory?


- How about an alternative explanation?
'Well yes but according to TotS, they are just ideas and not theories so I will keep them to myself.'

Uh, what? No. That now disagrees with the statement because there is conflicting evidence (I assume you have evidence, since otherwise you would have no reason for your ideas).

So that would contradict the statement and it therefore remains true.

Keep trying.

let me get back to my silly dragon.

- it isn't a theory

No? Well you must know what you are talking about here so I assume everything you say will be educating me. What is next?

- there is no way of measuring the phenomenon

Says who? I said you could not weigh it, see it, or detect radio activity.
That is a very short list of three types of measurements.

If it was a bona fide theory you would present evidence for it. Which would include measurements or observations.

If that were true, someone would have been able to falsify it by now. I still have $5000 sitting here waiting for the last set of armchair scientists to disprove it. Want a shot at it?

No. It's stupid. If there's a way of measuring it I'll use that and it'll be easily falsified.

If you won't tell me what systems of measurement you've used to detect it then you don't have any observable evidence and therefore you don't have a theory and you're just wasting everyone's time.

Look, this is how science works. You present a theory backed by evidence. I examine your evidence and if I find no problem with it (NOTHING CONFLICTING), and can't find an ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION for the findings then yes, I surmise that it's correct.

Why are you finding this so difficult?

So, mister scientist. What standard systems of measurement would you use to prove something does NOT exist? I would truly like as detailed and informative and answer as you can muster. This is important. Since it is impossible to prove something is NOT, you will be educating the world.

It's incredibly easy to prove that something is not.

Please don't tell me you've fallen for this nonsense about it being impossible to prove a negative?

Tell me what systems you would use to measure the lack of something.

Almost any. But I'll indulge you and give you one incredibly simple example. I would measure the lack of radiation with a geiger counter. If there isn't any radiation it would register no sign and one would surmise that there was a "lack of radiation".

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 06:59 AM

Originally posted by Aggie Man
You forgot about the "EDUCATED GUESS" doesn't have to prove a theory wrong if it's complete nonsense to begin with!

Just sayin'

This post from page one seems apposite.

You even seemed to agree with it at the time.

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 10:26 AM

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Tell me what systems you would use to measure the lack of something.

Almost any. But I'll indulge you and give you one incredibly simple example. I would measure the lack of radiation with a geiger counter. If there isn't any radiation it would register no sign and one would surmise that there was a "lack of radiation".

Thank you so very very much. You have gone far out of your way to avoid explaining to me just how you are even remotely correct when it comes to medical theories. Instead you have this long winded rant just saying I am wrong over and over and over again. Thanks for this last statement as it clearly shows what it is you really have to add here.

All you would have proof of is your lack of ability to measure something. It does not mean that something does not give off measurable signals, it just proves you cannot pick them up. I really appreciate you doing this for me so I no longer have to even pretend you have a real argument to make here.

Ulcers and Cancer were once caused by other things because of the lack of evidence against the theories at the time? OK. You believe that. Not registering on a Geiger counter tells you there is no radiation huh? My watch stopped so time must have ceased to exist as well.

Medical theories have completely shattered your argument so you have had to shift it 'I never said it is, I said it actually kind of is. Big difference.' No, it is called back pedaling. I am not sure how many posts you need to correct it but I would say that has been enough chances that you did not even attempt to take. Got it. No real argument, just anger and lots of time to type it out.

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 04:25 AM
That's a really poor effort even by your own low standards. You haven't engaged with what I've written at all and are obviously just looking for an excuse to back out of the discussion. Well, you've taken it (and amusingly it's still wrong
the geiger counter has no equivalence at all to your stopped watch) so I suppose this is at a welcome end.

Throughout you've been unable to back up your assertion that I said what you think I did and you've simply ignored my arguments when they've caused you difficulties. In that sense your last post, filled as it is with assertion and evasion, is an apt one.

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 09:20 AM
reply to post by Lillydale
First off, I want you to know that I have wasted 1/2 hour reading this thread, which is essentially you trolling.

You persist in an apparent inability (more likely refusal) to distinguish between "ideas," "hypotheses," "beliefs," "suppositions," "lies," et c., and "theories."

The same for "science," "logic," "faith," and "reason."

I know many people.
All people I know can make these distinctions.
You appear to be "people."
Therefore you can make these distinctions.
(this is 'logical')

I "believe" ATS posters who feign inability to make these distinctions are "trolls."

I have read over a dozen of your posts in which you present the inability or refusal to make the distinctions.
('observations,' and 'evidence')

Only a troll can persist in these posts.

We can test this hypothesis, but it will take some effort on your part, experimentation or testing.

Deny ignorance.


p.s.: as for your "medical" example, ulcers ARE caused by "parasites" (bacteria), contrary to the previous "theory" that they resulted from excess acid production. The "parasite theory" is now in vogue.

Until it is proven wrong.

[edit on 28-12-2009 by jdub297]

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 09:30 AM
reply to post by jdub297

Jdub29, some people are just really, really.. realllllllllllly dumb.

Like borderline retarded dumb. And it's not always their fault.

In short, stop wasting your time

posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 02:12 AM
this just in via pre-8-tore = magnetic cloud:
magnetic cloud is last remnants of singularity at center of milky way galaxy and says:

prove this theory wrong?
presume to tell the universe that 2 peices of it can not be in two places at the same time?
presume to tell a singularity what it can and can't do?

presume too much!

maybe the galaxy and or peices of it can be in more than one place at one time?

posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 02:25 AM
Please review this thread I made some time ago on the differences between a theory and hypothesis, as well as what each actually is in the scientific world.

Theory or Hypothesis?

posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 12:04 PM
Even most scientists would say that a theory -- even a well-tested one -- is not necessarily "the absolute truth".

Even those theories that today are considered by the average person to be "true" are still considered by any good scientist to only be the best explanation based on what we know and not necessarily the absolute true explanation.

Although, many theories that are not absolutely right are still not "all wrong". Look at Newton's Laws of Physics, for example. Newton's Laws have been found to not be absolutely true at the very microscopic level. HOWEVER, as a method to describe the motions of objects in our visible world, Newton's Laws work perfectly. Newton was not "wrong", his Laws are only very very good approximations.

[edit on 1/9/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in