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.


I don't believe in skeptics

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 08:07 PM

Originally posted by kthxbai

Originally posted by Kashai

In order to establish a scientific proof one must test a population. Meaning that to prove gravitational theory one would need to have explored the Universe and found it to be correct. Effectively what we discuss when it comes to gravity today is one of the foundations of modern science. But it is just a theory that so far as worked .

Proving the paranormal exists would require a test of Earth's entire population, that would be credible proof.

Otherwise one is simply presenting a statistical analysis. As an individual in order to prove the paranormal you would need practically infinite resources. Take for example that the first landing on the Moon was televised world wide, despite that there are people who claim it to be a lie.

Any thoughts?

No, you are thinking only in terms of deductive reasoning, science involves much more than that. Look at the inductive side. Say you are a "caveman" and are down by the river. You throw a rock in the water and it sinks. You do it again, it sinks. You do it many times over and every time it sinks. You form a conjecture that all rocks sink. Until there is a counterexample your theory holds.

Of course that darn Cro-Magnon comes up and throws some pumice in the water and it floats, thus disproving your conjecture.

There are many avenues of science and they are all based on observing the world around us. Each and every thing you do, each and everything you observe, everything, absolutely everything is part of the realm of science. It may not be a specific discipline, it may not involve any hi-tech equipment, but it's still science. Science is "The study of... everything"
edit on 5-1-2013 by kthxbai because: took out all the extra quotes

Inductive vs. deductive reasoning

Unlike deductive arguments, inductive reasoning allows for the possibility that the conclusion is false, even if all of the premises are true.[4] Instead of being valid or invalid, inductive arguments are either strong or weak, which describes how probable it is that the conclusion is true.[5]

A classical example of an incorrect inductive argument was presented by John Vickers:

All of the swans we have seen are white. Therefore, all swans are white.

Note that this definition of inductive reasoning excludes mathematical induction, which is a form of deductive reasoning.

The problem being that Mathematical induction is an abstraction unless one can go beyond statistics to prove it .

One can say that on Earth every time a pebble is thrown into the water it sinks. But to prove this is an absolute one would have to test very puddle or greater of water, in the universe, to confirm the results. One can of course assume that there is no part of reality, where a rock falls into a puddle of water and floats.

But that is not proof.

Any thoughts?

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in