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.

 

UK Admits Plans to Inject Aerosols into Stratosphere

page: 11
22
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
And when you say there is an "incentive for people to either find or genetically create a unicorn" you are talking purely out of your rear end and you know it.


What? Everyone wants unicorns to be real!




posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 

The monetary incentive for genetically engineering a unicorn is kind of like the monetary incentive involved in orgone accumulators. Imagine if a company could make a unicorn, children everwhere would want one, forget ponies!

And orgone accumulators, if they worked, would be a huge money maker. For a nominal $2,000 you can have a wooden and metal box that heals all of your ailments, think of the possibility in that! Or for a few hundred you can get a Cloud Buster that will both make clouds go away and end droughts, amazing!



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
What? Everyone wants unicorns to be real!


You must be getting desperate to keep your analogy going if all you have to work with now is mockery and insults.

I'm still waiting for declassified admissions of unicorns and all the rest that would actually put unicorns anywhere near the same level as chemtrails.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
The monetary incentive for genetically engineering a unicorn is kind of like the monetary incentive involved in orgone accumulators. Imagine if a company could make a unicorn, children everwhere would want one, forget ponies!


I already figured you posted here for no better reason than outright trolling. Can you also not present a better argument than mockery and sarcasm?

Again, you have no government reports mentioning unicorns. You do have declassified government reports admitting dumping chemicals into the atmosphere. That is where your stupid analogy falls apart. At least if you actually wanted to be reasonable about it. I know, I know, you are just trolling.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
I believe mockery and sarcasm are perfect foils for willful ignorance, illogic and scaremongering.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
I believe mockery and sarcasm are perfect foils for willful ignorance, illogic and scaremongering.


How would you be able to tell the difference, since I've never seen you post a logical argument once in the entirety of my encounters with you on the geo-engineering forums?



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


apart from this one, which you've seen many times


1/ Contrails are known to exist,
2/ Nothing else is known to exist that looks & beheaves exactly like a contrail
3/ therefore if you see something that looks and behaves exactly like a contrail it is reasonable to conclude that it is a contrail.

so you're wrong, again.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
apart from this one, which you've seen many times


Right, and I've called it out for the fallacy that it is many times.


You could more easily sum it up as:

"We don't have proof that chemtrails exist, therefore they don't exist."

It is a classic argument from ignorance.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
apart from this one, which you've seen many times


Right, and I've called it out for the fallacy that it is many times.


You could more easily sum it up as:

"We don't have proof that chemtrails exist, therefore they don't exist."

It is a classic argument from ignorance.

No! It is deduction, don't you understand logic?



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
apart from this one, which you've seen many times


Right, and I've called it out for the fallacy that it is many times.


but you've never actually identified why it is a fallacy.

To do so you would ahve to show how teh chain of deduction doesn't work, and you've never even tried to do that IIRC - you jsut say that is is wrong.

Here's how you would prove the chain wrong.

1/ show that 1 or more of the premises is incorrect ie show that contrails do not exist, or show that ther eis something out there that looks and behaves liek a contrail but is not a contrail.

2/ show that there is some oteehr relevant premise that I have not included

3/ show that the conclusion does not follow the premises - including any that I have missed that are relevant.

I did mentions this once before and IIRC you never responded to it then........so here's another chance - fill your boots



You could more easily sum it up as:

"We don't have proof that chemtrails exist, therefore they don't exist."


That is not an accurate summary.

It does NOT say that chemtrails do not exist, it says that it is reasonable to conclude that something that looks liek a contrail is a contrail, because nothing else is known to look and behave like a contrail.


It is a classic argument from ignorance.


In what way?

Apparently, despte being pointed at it many times, you do not actually know what an argumetn from ignorance is!!


An argument from ignorance is to say "XYZ must be true because you can't prove it is not true" - see en.wikipedia.org...

I am not saying that chemtrails must not exist because you cannot prove they do exist at all.

Firstly - I do NOT say that chemtails CANNOT exist - I say ther is no evidence that tehy DO exist.

Secondly - you CAN prove that they do exist - it is actually possible to do so - get the samples, show het equipment, find the materials, etc.

I understand that this is far too logical for you and I do not expect you to grasp this fundamental position, nor realise the logical concepts - we've got plenty of evidence to conclude that
but I beleive there are plenty of people out there without your shortcomings who wil appreciate the effort



edit on 16-6-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
No! It is deduction, don't you understand logic?


No, it's not deduction, and yes, I apparently have a much better grasp on it than you do.


Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
but you've never actually identified why it is a fallacy.


I have identified why argument from ignorance is a fallacy scores, if not hundreds of times.


Fallacy: Burden of Proof

Includes: Appeal to Ignorance ("Ad Ignorantiam")
Description of Burden of Proof

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

1. Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
2. Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.


www.nizkor.org...


That web page describes exactly what you perpetually do here.

The problem is that you won't admit it's actually a fallacy, and won't stop using it. I can't make you have common sense.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
www.nizkor.org...
That web page describes exactly what you perpetually do here.


No it doesn't, it's exact opposite. Like:


Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
No it doesn't, it's exact opposite. Like:


Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."


Except I don't even claim to have proof for you, so this is wrong and irrelevant.

That doesn't change the fact that you perpetually argue the fallacy I post above, either.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Uncinus
No it doesn't, it's exact opposite. Like:


Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."


Except I don't even claim to have proof for you, so this is wrong and irrelevant.

That doesn't change the fact that you perpetually argue the fallacy I post above, either.


No, what I'm arguing is called "evidence of absence". It's not a fallacy, it's a perfectly straightforward tool of reasoning.

There's no physical evidence of chemtrails - which I think is something you'd agree with?

Now based on what your theory of chemtrails actually IS, this may or may not be evidence for the absence of activities suggested by that theory.

If the theory suggests that chemtrails are large numbers of trails that are strikingly different to regular contrails, then the absence of evidence showing such trails is pretty good evidence of their absence.

If, on the other hand, your theory is that there's some undetectable spraying going on, of unknown scale, and nobody knows what it looks like, then the absence of evidence tells you nothing. You can't have evidence of the absence of something unless you know what it would look like.
Hence I was asking you what you actually believe, so I could see if there's any evidence for or against it.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
No, what I'm arguing is called "evidence of absence". It's not a fallacy, it's a perfectly straightforward tool of reasoning.


Reasoning of what? That there is no proof of the military covertly dumping chemicals, therefore it can't possibly be happening?

That is what you want to say, isn't it? But you already know that this is a blatant fallacy.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Fallacy: Burden of Proof

Includes: Appeal to Ignorance ("Ad Ignorantiam")
Description of Burden of Proof

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

1. Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
2. Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.


www.nizkor.org...


That web page describes exactly what you perpetually do here.

The problem is that you won't admit it's actually a fallacy, and won't stop using it. I can't make you have common sense.

Nope, the burden of proof is on the claimants of the 'chemtrails', debunkers don't have to show anything. Your reading comprehension isn't getting any better.

Now use deductive reasoning on 'chemtrails', you might learn something.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Uncinus
No, what I'm arguing is called "evidence of absence". It's not a fallacy, it's a perfectly straightforward tool of reasoning.


Reasoning of what? That there is no proof of the military covertly dumping chemicals, therefore it can't possibly be happening?

That is what you want to say, isn't it? But you already know that this is a blatant fallacy.

Covertly dumping chemicals? And now you're assigning an entity to the 'chemtrail' conspiracy, I see.

The evidence is in the air samples, they're updated every day. Check them, see what is out of the ordinary. There lies your answer. (Hint: Nothing is out of the ordinary.)

Also, nice job making your chemical claim unfalsifiable. That isn't fallacious in terms of critical thinking at all.

edit on 6/17/11 by adeclerk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
Nope, the burden of proof is on the claimants of the 'chemtrails', debunkers don't have to show anything. Your reading comprehension isn't getting any better.


The burden of proof, is on whoever is claiming to have proof, period. I am not claiming to have proof.

I will freely admit we have a difference of opinions.

You are the one who wants to go the extra mile to claim that yes, you do have some kind of proof that chemtrails don't exist. But when pressed as to what exactly this proof is, you stomp your feet and cry about how you can't be proven wrong. That is exactly the fallacy I have to keep pointing out to you over and over. Either admit you only have an opinion, present proof that chemtrails don't exist, or else shut up about it already!



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by adeclerk
Nope, the burden of proof is on the claimants of the 'chemtrails', debunkers don't have to show anything. Your reading comprehension isn't getting any better.


The burden of proof, is on whoever is claiming to have proof, period. I am not claiming to have proof.

I will freely admit we have a difference of opinions.

You are the one who wants to go the extra mile to claim that yes, you do have some kind of proof that chemtrails don't exist. But when pressed as to what exactly this proof is, you stomp your feet and cry about how you can't be proven wrong. That is exactly the fallacy I have to keep pointing out to you over and over. Either admit you only have an opinion, present proof that chemtrails don't exist, or else shut up about it already!

We can deduce that the lack of evidence for 'chemtrails' considering the size and scope of the 'spray program' supports their nonexistence. It's hardly an opinion, it's pure logic.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Uncinus
No, what I'm arguing is called "evidence of absence". It's not a fallacy, it's a perfectly straightforward tool of reasoning.


Reasoning of what? That there is no proof of the military covertly dumping chemicals, therefore it can't possibly be happening?

That is what you want to say, isn't it? But you already know that this is a blatant fallacy.


No. That's not what I want to say, and it's not what I said. It would indeed be a fallacy, even a child could see that.

If the military are covertly dumping chemicals, they seem to do it without leaving any evidence.

Most proponents of the chemtrail theory, however, are suggesting that they ARE leaving evidence. So if your theory is that they are doing it without evidence, then maybe you need a new name for your theory?



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join