Happy Halloween

UFO Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | UFO Discussion and Tracking | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Leonard Is A Little Confused.

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Vash on July 27, 2002 08:22:31 UTC

>I base my beliefs on what I consider the only
>evidence available at this time. If someone has
>any hard evidence to the contrary let me know.
>Note what I said, "hard evidence". Per
>scientific procedure it is not possible nor
>necessary for me to prove my point because(1) it
>is not possible to prove a negitive and (2) I am
>making a stand for the status quo. IE what I
>believe confirms to all known scientific facts
>as they exist today.


I have heard several times before this claim from you that negatives cannot be proven and therefore need no validation. This is a ridiculous claim and faulty on at least 3 points.

ONE:
Let's say there is a closed box. As the lid is closed, neither of us is aware that the box is empty, yet i propose a theory that there is a flower inside the box. My data supporting this theory is obviously very limited and you object. I then challenge you, "Prove there is NOT a flower in the box". Obviously, you would simply lift the lid and look inside thereby validating your theory: There is NOT a flower in the box.

TWO:
Through the magic of grammar we can convert the previously "unprovable" negative, "There is NOT a flower inside the box" to the more exact non-negative "The box is empty".

THREE:
Just as you are capable of proving there is no flower in the box you are capable of proving there is no life outside of Earth. The fact is that you are limited by 1) your intelligence and 2) access to technology capable of providing you with the nescessary proofs. This is the state of having little to no data to support your claim ie no "scientific fact" to base your beliefs on.

Infact there is no data to support either claim. It would be comparable to pricking a pin hole in the side of the box and concluding anything about the contents from your extremely limited view inside.

It's very aggravating to read your posts where you criticize other theories for lack of data (whether justified or not), then propose your own, then claim these theories "to the negative" need no proofs. Your theories as to life's uniqueness to Earth are just as unfounded as those you constantly attack. Did you pick this silly little gem up from a confused philosophy professor in college?

Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    Google
     
    Web www.astronomy.net
    DayNightLine
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2017 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
    Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
    "dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
    are trademarks of John Huggins