Burden of Proof

This is going to be short and sweet.

Burden of proof is on the accuser.

This idea that no evidence is necessary when talking about conspiracy theories blows me away. The CT community will continue to be marginalized (in public perception) if it continues to be overrun by those that reject the need for evidence to back claims and those that contend "its conspiracy theory forum, we can talk about everything all we want"


Ugh.

That is all.

a reply to: captaintyinknots

I'll never understand why people get worked up over the opinions of other people.

*sigh*

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
This is going to be short and sweet.

Burden of proof is on the accuser.

This idea that no evidence is necessary when talking about conspiracy theories blows me away. The CT community will continue to be marginalized if it continues to be overrun by those that reject the need for evidence to back claims and those that contend "its conspiracy theory forum, we can talk about everything all we want"


Ugh.

That is all.

Just because some people do not gather the proper evidence, and tend to exaggerate their claims, does not mean you can lump all CTists (?? lol) into that category.

If there is no evidence to the contrary of any CT, then I personally consider the debate a stalemate.

I will admit though, I am able to have faith in unsupported CT, more so than I am able to believe a religion. Oh well, at least I'm aware of my hypocrisy, right?


ETA: Just realized where this was going. He's still upset about people talking smack on the father of one of Elliot Rodger's victims. I fall on both sides of this fence.

a reply to: captaintyinknots

I don't know.
I thought op was gunning for drone strikes, then I read how to boil an egg; and it makes perfect sense when describing dustification of towers 1&2.

originally posted by: CagliostroTheGreat
a reply to: captaintyinknots

I'll never understand why people get worked up over the opinions of other people.

*sigh*

I have no problem with opinion. I have a problem with baseless definitive claims, especially when they implicate innocent people.

originally posted by: CagliostroTheGreat
a reply to: captaintyinknots

I'll never understand why people get worked up over the opinions of other people.

*sigh*

One could be of the opinion that chemtrails are real, for example, but with no proof to back up that assertion, it remains just that - opinion. When someone comes into a site like this equating their opinion to fact, then it becomes quite maddening.

a reply to: JohnTheSmith
I personally dont lump all cters together at all. But the fringe lunacy absolutely DOES play a part in public perception.

a reply to: captaintyinknots

Yeah, I just figured out a moment ago what you're saying, and I can't disagree. You should've been more clear from the start IMO.

originally posted by: JohnTheSmith
a reply to: captaintyinknots

Yeah, I just figured out a moment ago what you're saying, and I can't disagree. You should've been more clear from the start IMO.

advice taken, I added a little more clarification to the op

And for the record, this is not only about the elliot rodger thread. This trend has been on the rise for a very long time.

The point is, any cter that admits they dont care about evidence is admitting that they shouldnt be taken seriously.

a reply to: captaintyinknots

There are times where skeptics ignore the evidence. Case in point with 9/11, thermite was found in the rubble of the trade towers, recordings of explosions, eye witnesses testimony and physical properties of the collapse doesn't add up. There is more than just a handful of expert pilots, architects and physics professors that question it. I consider that evidence, and I can guarantee it would be admissible as evidence in a court of law. These expert opinions would also have to be taken into account in a court of law.

Evidence is usually ignored by those who have already come to the conclusion who is guilty. Not weighing or comparing evidence, and ignoring basic facts doesn't mean all conspiracies haven't presented evidence. Ignorance can sometimes be on the side of skeptics and sometimes skeptics don't offer evidence.

a reply to: WeRpeons

That is a fantastic point, and I that you for bringing it to the table.

People cannot pick and choose what evidence to pay attention to and which to ignore.

If truth is the goal, all evidence must be considered.

originally posted by: CagliostroTheGreat
a reply to: captaintyinknots

I'll never understand why people get worked up over the opinions of other people.

*sigh*

It comes across as a degeneration of our intellect as a species, particularly when the opinion we disagree with is a common one. I think. Just guessing.

a reply to: captaintyinknots

People cannot pick and choose what evidence to pay attention to and which to ignore.

If truth is the goal, all evidence must be considered.

Or discounted.

Discounting hair brained notions by people with little experience in the field of nano-demo, "a little known pseudo science" apparently… a smoking gun is all thats needed. Trying to debunk a thousand vague notions is not going to satisfy a sceptic, anyway.

I got tired of trying to explain to some that just regurgitate something they heard somewhere and blindly accepted that without research, re-spewing it again and again because it came from "experts". Thats what the media says all the time. Expert sources agree…

Every phenomenon associated with the demise of the towers from start to finish is explainable. I filled threads with pics, YouTubes, dissertation and rebuttal to no avail. They just want to believe "thermite" did it, or missiles, or didn't even happen?? (face palm).

After a long time I became convinced they were simply using these vague notions to distract conversation away from the reasons behind the towers destruction to obfuscate any research into the matter with a blizzard of meaningless, "controlled-demo-freefalll-footprints". Sort of like Chemtrails and melting ice.

They succeeded, brilliantly. Theres a million pounds of crap to sort through now.

More to your point, when I can find some short video on a subject I show it. Its got to be short to keep peoples attention in the land of ADD. Most people here will try to debunk something you say anyway. If my statements are accurate they will search, find verification and then ignore that point, switching to another subject or demanding some other proof be shown. Never satisfied, its meaningless to me to continue to throw evidence before them, they won't address it anyway.

Of course you are correct, but determinations would have to be made on a case by case basis, considering the fact that sometimes there are varying degrees of evidence even if proof itself is lacking. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence, even if a case cannot be proven. So I have no problem with someone not accepting a case based on evidence that does not actually prove that case, but what I do have a problem with is the denying of the possibility that the proposition "could" be correct.

Someone could get on here and say some of the craziest stuff I've ever heard, and no matter how unlikely that hypothesis is, I cannot unequivocally state that it is not the truth. This is because to say that I would have to be 100% certain, and certainty is a strange thing. People used to be certain that the earth was flat, or that the earth was the center of the solar system, or even the universe itself. Even accepted scientific ideas have been overturned in the past.

My point is simply that even when we think we are certain we could be wrong. So all I ask is that everyone admit that you cannot actually disprove, with 100% certainty, in every case. I think it is arrogance to a certain extent, at least in some instances. And I especially wanted to stress the point that scientific ideas advance over time. Granted, most of the instances of science being wrong, at least regarding big ideas, occurred a long time ago. Phlogiston, the Martian canals which were proven to be an optical illusion, through the advancement of optics technologies. You can find many in more modern contexts, such as the Steady State Theory.

So again, I am not disagreeing with you, rather I just feel that people should be willing to admit that some of the craziest ideas cannot be disproven, but because the burden of proof is on the one proposing the theory, I do not ask that you believe them without proof. We could be 99.9% certain about something, but that still leaves 1/10 of a percent of uncertainty. Unless we are going based on probabilities, which is still not certainty.

a reply to: JiggyPotamus

People used to be certain that the earth was flat…

Certain or just maintaining control of peoples minds? Anyone can hold an egg, grapefruit or cannonball up to firelight and see it resembles the moon in shadow. I think they did, but kept their "heretical" ideas to themselves for fear of burning alive. The records say people used to believe that, but those records were written by the state, not ordinary people.

Burden of Proof is on the claimer.

You believe God exist? where is the proof.

You believe Reptilians exist? Where si the proof.

You Believe Aliens exist on earth? where is the proof.



Burden of Proof is not...the following

Prove to me God doesn't exist.

Prove to me Reptilians doesn't exit.

Prove to me there is no aliens exist on earth.