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 stereologist
Evolution is a fact. There are theories to explain the fact of evolution.
this is a real question...not to generate any debate...
i may be having a moment of ignorance, but the way i keep reading that statement i believe it contradicts itself...
you say evolution IS FACT. there are THEORIES to explain the FACT of evolution...
ou said that conspiracy theores are ostensious and have no really backing (generalized statement, no need to defend)...yet in yor debate over if evolution is fact or not...you say evolution is proven fact by the theories that explain evolution
Ostension has 3 forms. The issue is whether or not the 3 forms of ostension are being met.
1. Do people form groups to act out issues associated with these conspiracies?
2. Do people pretend to act out these conspiracies?
3. Do people try to explain things they do not understand using these conspiracies?
I would think that the main way ostension would be seen in conspiracies is the last form, quasi-ostension.
there have been reports of "strange rituals" taking place there as well.
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by superman2012
Not true at all. I and others till you skipped over a post that offered nothing substantial.
Maybe you would like to give examples of ostension involving those that point out that 2012 is a hoax.
Gladly.
There is no proof, one way or another. Your side states that nothing will happen because, the Mayan calendar is wrong, translations are wrong, nothing is wrong with the Earth, etc. Their side states that something will happen because of the exact opposite conjecture. The absolute truth is...that neither side knows for sure. Sure, one side is more probable to happen, but, that doesn't mean the other side is impossible. Dec.22 will be the definitive day for both sides right? (I'm confused anyways, is Dec. 21 CST or GMT?)
ps- I'm using the definition of ostension, not the folklorists version. Even if I use the folklorists definition of ostension, you do not know if you are using false evidence intended to corroborate your viewpoint until after the fact, as I previously stated.
But i guess it goes both ways, doesn't it ?
means if one doesn't want to believe it will find all the evidence supporting that and thus under Ostension again.
I think it is hilarious that this post was completely ignored, completely validating exactly what the post said!
A heat wave is an extended time interval of abnormally and uncomfortably hot and unusually humid weather. To be a "heat wave" such a period should last at least one day, but conventionally it lasts from several days to several weeks.
False evidence intended to corroborate an existing legend is known to folklorists as “ostension.” This process also inevitably extends the legend. For, even if the evidence is eventually exposed as false, it will have affected people’s perceptions of the phenomenon it was intended to represent. Faked photographs of UFOs, Loch Ness monsters and ghosts generally fall under the heading of ostension.
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Rendier
The ostension issue is not about flawed arguments. In the case of failures becoming part of 2012 it is easy to consider the claims of objects in front of the Sun. There have been an untold number of claims that a photo of the Sun shows a dark object. After a long effort each time it is passed on that the camera changes the bright light into black pixels. Still people claim that objects have been photographed as they passed in front of the Sun.
The issue is not making a mistake in understanding that cell phones take poor photos of the Sun, but it is the transformation of this failure into evidence that is part of the ostension.
What I quoted from the article was
False evidence intended to corroborate an existing legend is known to folklorists as “ostension.” This process also inevitably extends the legend. For, even if the evidence is eventually exposed as false, it will have affected people’s perceptions of the phenomenon it was intended to represent. Faked photographs of UFOs, Loch Ness monsters and ghosts generally fall under the heading of ostension.
Well yeah, but again, the exact same can be said for the opposite side. If anti-conspiracy theorists claim something is false, yet afterwards proven wrong themselves by the conspiracy theorists, the false claim will still get used in the future as if true.
I gues I'm just failing to see what your initial goal was with this thread. If it was to point out mistakes are being made on either side, i'll agree. If it was to point out that nothing is going to happen in 2012 because they're has been some flawed evidence, I would strongly have to disagree. (I'm NOT saying that something will happen in 2012!)