Message and run?08:52 Jan 27 2009
Times Read: 643
I originally drafted this as a response to a personal message I received. In attempting to respond point-by-point, I found that the person who presented their views seems to have found it appropriate to present their feelings on an issue, but at the same time, block any possibility at receiving a response. I'll not present any names here but since I feel such actions are somewhat less than appropriate, I will be posting their comments along with my responses. They already know who they are.
Re: "no, its you and that other person who make me mad."
I assume you're talking about ________. And it's obviously not so much us as the points we present that cause you anger. They anger you because you dislike them and don't want them to be true. Unfortunately for you, they are true and are well evidenced, unlike what you wish were true which is instead, contrary to the evidence. It's fairly obvious that you wouldn't have thought all was well if we'd kept the evidence out of the thread. But because we presented the evidence, we made a stronger case than did those who represent what you wish to believe, so in recognition of the fact that you couldn't challenge an opposing viewpoint, you became angry at those presenting it. That's what's known as "killing the messenger". We didn't make the whole Ouija board issue a rash of false claims, we simply pointed out that it is.
Re: "i love it when people just say what they believe"
But there is absolutely no value to such a practice and it degrades the quality of discussions in the forum. Let me offer some examples to act as analogies. Many people believe that Barack Obama has never produced a valid birth certificate demonstrating that he is an American citizen and fully qualified for the seat of the presidency. Even where I work I've met a number of people who believe this to be true. So I dug up a copy of his birth certificate, looked into the records, found his date of birth, his mother's state of citizenship at the time of his birth and the necessary qualifications for the presidency. I found that despite the popular belief that he has not demonstrated that he fully qualifies as an American citizen, such a belief is simply wrong. So it doesn't really matter how many people want to sit around and state their beliefs about the matter, the fact remains that people holding such beliefs are wrong. And all of the kicking around of false beliefs in the world isn't going to change that.
Here's another example; many people believe that the Large Hadron Collider presents a substantial risk of creating a microscopic black hole that might eventually consume the Earth. Many of these people presented this belief in a thread on the forum here. But the fact of the matter is that there is no reasonable concern because the energies involved in the LHC collisions (14 TeV maximum), are well below the energies involved in particle collisions in our atmosphere which happen naturally every day. It doesn't matter how many people want to sit around and toss out false and wrongful beliefs, the truth is all that really matters.
Yet one more example; many people believe that it's perfectly logical that a ghost or spirit could project an image which, while possibly being invisible to the human eye, could be captured on film or by a digital camera. But if one looks to the workings of a film camera or digital camera, it becomes quickly obvious that they are geared to capture the same wavelengths of light to which the receptors in the human eye are sensitive. So no matter how many people want to sit around and bat about unevidenced and purely wrongful beliefs, the fact remains that if the human eye can't detect such an image, neither will a standard film or digital camera. It's simply science, based in evidence, testable, demonstrable and factual.
Re "no one shoud have to prove themselves to you or anyone else, let alone their own beliefs"
No body asked anyone to "prove" anything. I'm fairly certain I already covered this with you but since my explanation appears to have been lacking in clarity for you, I'll attempt to cover it again in far more detail so that my meaning is fully expressed.
"Proof" is a purely useless standard. The first problem you run into is who it is who must agree that any concept has been proven before the evidences offered can be considered "proof". The vast majority of people on the Earth fully understand that the Earth is an oblate spheroid and not, in any true sense, a flat object. We have satellites orbiting the planet, shuttles and space stations orbiting the planet, photographs from space, eye-witnesses from space, geo-sychronous satellites, the visible curvature of the horizon, the shadow of the Earth cast across the moon during lunar eclipse and many other forms of evidence sufficient to be considered more than conclusive. And yet we still have an organization of people who call themselves the "Flat Earth Society" and they still believe that the Earth is flat. So does that mean that all of the conclusive evidence is or isn't "proof"? That's why you'll never find me asking anyone for "proof" of anything.
What I have asked for and will continue to require in the future is "supporting evidence". In case you don't understand the difference, I'll try to give you an example. If I accuse you of shooting someone to death and I find a gun which store records show was purchased by you, along with a bullet retrieved from the body which matches the caliber of the gun, I have evidence which supports my accusation. But I don't have "proof" nor do I have conclusive evidence. I simply have some supporting evidence. If you then analyze the bullet and show that the rifling marks don't match that of a test bullet fired from your gun, you now have evidence which supports your claim that you are innocent and did not shoot the victim. Neither side has any proof one way or the other. Neither side has conclusive evidence. But both sides have evidence to support their assertion.
See the difference? I didn't ask for proof, I asked for evidence. And evidence is a perfectly acceptable standard and the one standard which in all of human history, has demonstrated itself to be the singular most important type of support for any assertion. When people hold assertions but lack evidence, the odds that their assertions will be confirmed are barely above nil.
Re: "i only wanted thoughts on the matter, but you guys always expect people to prove themselves."
Despite what you might believe, the conclusive evidence of what you asked for is still in the thread. As I've already pointed out, you said,
"...this thread is intended for anyone to post what they know about them so I can decide whether or not I want to try this thing out...."
Do you see the eleventh word in your above statement? That word is "know". That insinuates knowledge and knowledge insinuates demonstrable factuality, not simply belief. So while you may have wanted mere belief devoid of any standard of reason, what you asked for was knowledge and knowledge requires more than simple belief. Knowledge requires a standard of evidence. Evidence is what I provided and evidence is what I asked for -- the same thing you asked for in your opening post.
Re: "but you guys always expect people to prove themselves."
I know I've already covered this more than once but just to assure that we're clear on the matter;
no one asked anyone for "proof". We asked for evidence and evidence is a perfectly acceptable standard. It's the standard by which you operate every moment of every day. It's how you know whether a light is on or off. It's how you know whether your car is about to run out of gas or has a full tank. It's how you know if your eyes are open or closed. It's how you know if your door is locked or unlocked. It's how you know if your phone is ringing. It's how you know if your shoes are tied. It's the means by which you function through every moment of your conscious life and the standard to which you measure virtually everything. The only time people seem to have any problem with a standard of evidence is when it fails to support (or contradicts), their pet beliefs. And that's all about your desire to believe, not about what is or isn't true.
Re: "If you want proof, then seek it out yourself, and leave people alone"
I can only assume that you have completely failed to recognize your own double-standard. You didn't become upset when someone posted web sites in an attempt to substantiate their claims through evidence. You didn't become upset when people attempted to use their agreement among themselves to support their assertions. The only time you became upset is when your desired beliefs on the matter were successfully and appropriately challenged with conclusive evidence. A little intellectual honesty is called for here in asking that you recognize that the true source of your anger is that a pet belief -- one you held with a level of affection for the service it paid to your personal desires -- was successfully challenged and shown to be untrue.
I hope you'll continue to partake in the forum. But in so doing, it is also my hope that you will come to understand that it is not yours nor do you make the rules, even when you are the opening poster for a thread. It's not up to you to attempt to over-turn half a millenia of demonstration for the value of evidence nor is it your place to suggest that others should only post in favor of your preferred beliefs.
If you place a topic on the table, then it's on the table for both sides. If it turns out that the side you had hoped would emerge as most likely is actually shown to hold no credibility, then take it as a learning experience and apply that the next time you choose to participate. I hope to see you back in the forums very soon.
COMMENTS
-