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 bsbray11
["Chemtrails exist" is also very difficult to prove given that you cannot look at a cloud trail from a plane and chemically analyze it with you eyeballs from thousands of feet away.
If chemical analyses of the air are introduced then you would invariably set to work making a million excuses.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by wcitizen
A hypothesis can be proven, that's the whole reason for developing a hypothesis.
Of course a hypothesis can be proven, but once it's proven it's not a hypothesis.
From Webster's dictionary:
Definition of HYPOTHESIS
1a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action
2: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences
3: the antecedent clause of a conditional statement
There is just one hypothesis here; "Chemtrails" exist.
"Chemtrails" do not exist is the null of the hypothesis.
The null hypothesis is not provable.
In order to prove it every contrail ever made and every contrail which will ever be made would have to be tested and shown to not contain materials which cannot be attributed to the combustion of jet fuel.
Subjective observations are not data and they do not reject the null hypothesis.
References to past activities are are not data which reject the null.
References to proposed programs do not reject the null.
There is no data which rejects the null.
The null hypothesis still stands therefore the the hypothesis is not shown to be valid.
The hypothesis is provable. Provide a direct sample of a "chemtrail" and show that it contains materials which cannot be attributed to the combustion of jet fuel. Or provide evidence which rejects the null.
Originally posted by wcitizen
You know this is the most ridiculous argument put forward by so many deniers. If these are military black ops, as some people believe, this is impossible, and even without that it's nigh on impossible task, and you know it.
You know this is the most ridiculous argument put forward by so many deniers. If these are military black ops, as some people believe, this is impossible, and even without that it's nigh on impossible task, and you know it.
Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion could be shown to be false by a particular observation or physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, it means that if the statement were false, then its falsehood could be demonstrated
Falsifiability is used in science and the philosophy of science. The concept was made popular by Karl Popper in his philosophical analysis of the scientific method. Popper argued that a hypothesis, proposition, or theory is "scientific" only if it is, among other things, falsifiable. That is, falsifiability is a necessary (but not sufficient) criterion for scientific ideas. Popper asserted that unfalsifiable statements are non-scientific, although not without relevance.
Originally posted by adeclerk
reply to post by wcitizen
The part stating that all of the evidence points toward contrail.
If you are going to make the claim that some contrails are 'chemtrails', I would expect you to have at least some evidence to support it.
(I know you didn't explicitly claim anything, but you are implicating some could be 'chemtrails')
As it stands there are only contrails.
Unless you have some evidence to the contrary?
Originally posted by wcitizen
How about some evidence that contrails are simply contrails? There is none.
Originally posted by wcitizen
How about some evidence that contrails are simply contrails? There is none.
Originally posted by wcitizen
How about some evidence that contrails are simply contrails? There is none.
edit on 31-5-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)edit on 31-5-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by firepilot
Originally posted by wcitizen
How about some evidence that contrails are simply contrails? There is none.
edit on 31-5-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)edit on 31-5-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)
None? Then why is it the contrails start at some distance behind the engine? Hmmmmmmmm?
Originally posted by LightAssassin
THIS ARGUMENT WILL NEVER BE WON UNTIL ACTUAL PROOF IS PROVIDED. NOT VISUAL EVIDENCE....ACTUAL PROOF.
You're making blanket statements here is if they were facts which refute chemtrails, but this is dishonest.
Subjective observations BECOME data when the same phenomenon is witnessed by significant numbers of people independently from each other in different parts of the world. The data then has to be interpreted, of course, but subjective observations ARE definitely considered data under certain given circumstances.
Past activities can indicate progression or regression of a phenomenon, and this is valid data as a comparison for current data on a said phenomenon. Past activities can indicate probability. This method is used all the time in the scientific and other fields as data to support validation or invalidation of a hypothesis, negative or positive. Of course, as always, how the data is interpreted also plays a significant role.
Circumstantial evidence is still evidence, not proof but evidence. Evidence of motive allows calculation of probability and likelihood - and must be considered when evidence is being assessed.....in criminal trials these are accepted as valid and are taken very seriously, as everyone knows. Credible witness testimony is also considered strong evidence.
Now THAT is a SUBJECTIVE interpretation of the available data.
Nice try but unsustainable. Your subjective interpration of available data is what this comes down to. There is no data which definitively and irrefutably proves the 'null', and so it remains a unproven hypothesis.
Don't peddle that nonsensical argument, please.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by wcitizen
You're making blanket statements here is if they were facts which refute chemtrails, but this is dishonest.
The quoted statement makes no refutation of "chemtrails" nor does the post. The existence of "chemtrails" has been proposed as a hypothesis. I am treating it as such.
[/qupte]
Whi;e d
Subjective observations BECOME data when the same phenomenon is witnessed by significant numbers of people independently from each other in different parts of the world. The data then has to be interpreted, of course, but subjective observations ARE definitely considered data under certain given circumstances.
When subjective observations are directly contradicted by other subjective observations, as well as historical data, they cannot be considered valid. Even if they were valid data they would not reject the null. If it were shown that there is an observable difference between "contrails" and "chemtrails" (not demonstrated) there could be factors other than "spraying" to account for them.
Past activities can indicate progression or regression of a phenomenon, and this is valid data as a comparison for current data on a said phenomenon. Past activities can indicate probability. This method is used all the time in the scientific and other fields as data to support validation or invalidation of a hypothesis, negative or positive. Of course, as always, how the data is interpreted also plays a significant role.
They may used to support the hypothesis but past activities do not reject the null.
Are you going round in circles deliberately? I have already said neither hypothesis has been proven. This remains an undisputed fact. There is evidence to support both hypotheses. Interpretation of the evidence is subjective.
Circumstantial evidence is still evidence, not proof but evidence. Evidence of motive allows calculation of probability and likelihood - and must be considered when evidence is being assessed.....in criminal trials these are accepted as valid and are taken very seriously, as everyone knows. Credible witness testimony is also considered strong evidence.
We are not talking about a criminal trial, we are talking about a scientific hypothesis. The circumstantial evidence does not reject the null.
Now THAT is a SUBJECTIVE interpretation of the available data.
If there is data which rejects the null it has not been provided.
Nice try but unsustainable. Your subjective interpration of available data is what this comes down to. There is no data which definitively and irrefutably proves the 'null', and so it remains a unproven hypothesis.
As I said, the null is unprovable. Unless evidence rejects the null, it stands. The only thing required to prove the hypothesis is a single sample of a "chemtrail".
Don't peddle that nonsensical argument, please.
The scientific method is nonsensical? The null stands. The hypothesis has not been validated.
edit on 5/31/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by wcitizen
My hypothesis has been proved