Ostension and 2012

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   

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...

you 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

again, i may be thinking ignorantly of the word usage of your statement...but it looks to me as if youre saying his theories are junk, but your theories show fact

could you clear this up for me please
edit on 27-3-2012 by JAsay1LOVE because: typo




posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by JAsay1LOVE
 




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...

That is an excellent question.

In science, a fact is something we believe to be correct. It is something that can be repeatedly checked. Notice that this is not the same as being truth. Truth may be unknowable. Examples of facts are insects have 6 legs, the length of the year is 365 1/4 days, fossils represent once living creatures, and so forth.

A theory explains facts. A theory is also testable. There has to be some means of showing a theory false. Something that can't be tested is not a theory.

Some ideas have been used in so many different ways that it becomes hard to figure out what is being referred to since everyone might interpret the words differently.

There are facts showing evolution happened. We see that in the fossil record. For example, the transition from reptile to mammal has so many examples that it is difficult, probably impossible to assign some of the forms as being either reptile or mammal. Better methods of analysis need to be developed to figure out this rather smooth transition. That is the sort of change that is referred to as evolution. Over the history of the world we see all sorts of changes. There are new types of life appearing. No fish, then fish. No crabs then crabs. No reptiles then reptiles. No spiders then spiders. Things have changed.

So how is this explained? What causes such changes? That is where the theories come into play. There are many theories to explain the change of life on Earth.

The theories explain the facts, but the theories do not prove the facts. The facts are what we believe to be true.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by JAsay1LOVE
 



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

I didnt say that conspiracy theories were ostensious. I did not mean to imply that either.


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.

When I wrote the post above I was suggesting that ostension would mainly be seen in the form of quasi-ostension. I did not mean to imply that it did exist in conspiracy theories although it might.

I do think that 2012 is rife with ostension.

One of the interesting issues in ostension is that failures become a part of the lore. That is certainly true in 2012 with failures to find unknown planets or evidence against them becoming part of the lore and thus true in some minds.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   
I think it is hilarious that this post was completely ignored, completely validating exactly what the post said!



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Finally... a thread worth getting into.....

First off (with no offense at all to my american and canadian bretheren) America and to a lesser extent Canada are not the epicentre of the world.. i mean i know they have large populations.. i know financially they are (were) the most powerful nation for a long time and i know that the northern America's have alot of the Military and Business sway in the world...However...

just because there is a heat wave there... just because "mass die off's" are happening there this year and just because there has been a financial # storm it doesnt mean the end of the world...

you know for like the last 20 years there has been particularly bad financial trumoil in Africa.. there has been Droughts on and off.. Record Heat and Record railfall... i doubt every person in Africa expects its been the end of the world... forever... nothing would ever get done.


i would really like to overly point out right now i have absolutley no issue with America i work with an american company and have many american friends... it just gets frustrating on here sometimes reading about how the WORLD is going to end because X happened in America, sometimes i laugh it off but recently it seems to get under my skin.

at times Conecting the dots on here is really no different than ancient folks not understanding why theres a full moon sometimes, why the earth gets angry at us with it rain and fire....

i fully believe in UFO's, i am amazed with varying Megalithic structure, i love the oak island money pit i like questioning things around me.. but there is no point to draw conclusions based on tiny "facts" i know science can be wrong, but there is no reason to avoid scientific method when looking at an issue.

If you want feel that because somthing kinda strange has happend in your little portion of the world that means its all over soon then fair enough.. i thought we were denying ignorance on here? or is it deny ignorance unless its patriotic?



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 06:34 AM
link   
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.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 06:46 AM
link   
In this article about
Pic de Bugarach: French commune home to 20,000 ‘doomsday cultists’ awaiting alien salvation"

we see a clear example of ostension in the form of acting out.

there have been reports of "strange rituals" taking place there as well.


That's ostension.

Someone has claimed that those pointing out the failures of the 2012 claims are involved in ostension I invite them to give such a clear example.
edit on 28-3-2012 by stereologist because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


You wrote: They simply claim that they are vibrating


You are vibrating. Everything is vibrating. All of existence is energy vibrating at different frequencies.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 08:32 AM
link   

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.

ETA: Just by the fact that people write threads (a showing: ostension definition) about how 2012ers are wrong, with no proof they are guilty of the same things that they are accusing the other side of.
edit on 28-3-2012 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by sdocpublishing
 


This motion is exists, but is due to known forces and conditions. There is an entire field called statistical mechanics that deals with what is macroscopically visible based on what is happening at the microscopic level.

Although it may be true that there is motion at the microscopic level to claim that it happens at a frequency is hardly correct. The motions are often random in nature or interpreted to be random in nature. There is an energy distribution for the particles involved.

To claim frequencies or that a person can detect these vibrations is simply not true. At best we can observe the macroscopic result in people which is their temperature.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 




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.


The Mayan calendar is not wrong. There simply are no prophecies associated with the end of the long count. The Earth shows no increase in quakes or volcanic eruptions. The evidence is clearly against any unknown planet sized mass within 320AU.

So we do know with certainty that much of what is claimed by 2012 believers is wrong.

The question posed to you was to support this post.

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.

You wrote

I think it is hilarious that this post was completely ignored, completely validating exactly what the post said!

The post referenced by used of the term ostension. Can you provide anything to justify that post?

So where is this false evidence? What is false about long term tracking of quakes and eruptions? What is false about whole sky surveys? What is false?



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


Could something happen on December 21, 2012? Certainly. However, the claim 2012ers make is that something will happen on December 21, 2012, that the Maya and other ancient cultures knew about it, that they wrote about it, and that we now have evidence for these beliefs. That claim is undeniably false. Yet those false claims have gone on to form the basis for a quasi-religion.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   
The weather in states has been very abnormal. Not enough to cause alarm, except to those ostensionists. I understand that this happens. Sometimes when I look at past data, it gives me a moment of clarity. Some people in this thread have called the abnormal temps. a heat wave. I thought heat waves could not last this long. I'm referencing the time from the beginning of December to now.

Should it be called a heat wave?

www.floridadisaster.org...



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.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   
As been said before, wouldn't the same be true for the other side of the debate?

For example the moon landing hoax:

People trying to prove the moon landing is real have oftentimes used flawed arguements to invalidate the hoaxer's claims. So while afterwards it gets proven that the hoaxer's were, in fact, right (Only validates that certain piece of evidence and not the Moon landing, by the way), the Moon landing hoax seems to be dismissed because it's "been proven wrong" already.

I could probably dig up alot of similar examples, especially the intire campaign the American government launched in the 70's/80's to ridicule the UFO conspiracy theorists. (Again, regardless of wether or not they were right)

So while I'm not saying that something will happen in 2012, from the statistics I have seen, temperatures are going up and earthquakes are getting more frequent and powerfull. Wether or not it's correlated to the 2012-conspiracy I'll leave in the middle, but turning a blind eye just because there have been proven to be some hoaxers is also ostension.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   
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.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   

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.

In other words, it's a double edged sword. Failed arguements on either side (pro or con conspiracy) are likely to get brought up again in the future, this is not exclusive to the pro-side. And therefore dismissing all evidence that the Earth is acting a bit weird because the 2012-conspiracy has been proven to have some flaws is no different than claiming 2012 is the end because it says so in the Mayan calender.

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!)
edit on 28-3-2012 by Rendier because: (no reason given)
edit on 28-3-2012 by Rendier because: (no reason given)
edit on 28-3-2012 by Rendier because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


thank you very much for respectfully educating me. thank you friend...i tend to drift towards your side on the 2012 hysteria. I believe that the weather and many other events currently are quite odd; however, i do not believe many of the extinction theories or end of the world theories

they are def fun to read tho..its what makes site lie ats so fun to frequent daily lol...balance the education with the fantasy

equal rights, justice, peace, and love for all



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Rendier
 



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 agree that no side is going to less prone to this. But do you know of any 2012 instances? It would be fascinating to learn about it if there were such a 2012 issue.


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!)

I believe that ostension is what carries the 2012 claims forward.

Another 2012 ostension is the claim that an unknown planet is closing in on us. Despite the overwhelming evidence against it the claimpersists and is believed to be true by a fair number of people.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Another example of ostension is the claim that the Earth is acting up. The story goes that all of the following are increasing:
1. quakes
2. volcanoes
3. floods
4. big storms
5. tornadoes
6. tsunamis
7. fireballs

The evidence is quite clear that most of these are not increasing. Quakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, and fireballs are not increasing. Floods are and due to human impact. Big storms and tornadoes probably will as the climate warms.

Despite the evidence contrary to changes in quakes and eruptions, people still want to point to news and scream out, "Can't you read the news?" The news is what sells. Thew news is only part of the story. Unless people are affected interest in a geological event is cursory or nonexistent outside of the those studying such events.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


They are only false if you believe the other side. Devil's advocate for a minute. I know, a man cannot come back from the dead. I know, a man cannot heal the blind with a touch. I know, no man can walk on water. There are millions that believe this to be fact. Blindly. They did not witness it nor was anyone they know. How is this any different. People have their beliefs (for or against) and no matter what is said to either group, no one will change their mind.





top topics
 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join