|
|
 | | From: | JP Lassila | | Subject: | Burden of proof (Was: Skeptics vs. parapsychologists) | | Date: | 22 Jan 2005 05:51:35 -0800 |
|
|
 | Happy dog wrote:
>Come up with a novel, testable claim and every
>skeptic will be interested.
So, is it something like this what you are search for? (This site
contains lot of claimed evidence for afterlife.)
http://www.victorzammit.com/
Or is it more like Radin's book "Conscious universe"? Or more like
Schmicker's "best evidence" (http://tinyurl.com/5qyeb)?
And yes, I know what means "burden of proof" - as I also know Randi's
"open" challenge (I think we have tell this for them whose can't to be
tested by JREF because of Randi's resistance, like one certain
"noneating man").
Burden of proof doesn't mean that you should force someone to look at
evidence and evaluating it. In other words, you don't have any
"burden", in this context, to force anyone to believe that America is
exist if he don't even want to look or evaluate the evidence for
America's exist. It means only that you should made evidence (or more
accurately, material that you think can be estimated as evidence)
public when anyone, who interested in it can reach it and also
evaluate it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html
|
|
| | From: | Spencer W Hunter | | Subject: | Re: Burden of proof | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 22:08:31 +0000 (UTC) |
|
|
| JP Lassila wrote:
> Happy dog wrote:
>
> >Come up with a novel, testable claim and every skeptic will be
> >interested.
>
> So, is it something like this what you are search for? (This site
> contains lot of claimed evidence for afterlife.)
> http://www.victorzammit.com/
jeez--"claimed" is right. Here's my favorite:
"'Either Dr. Stevenson is making a colossal mistake, or he will be
known as the Galileo of the 20th century' stated Dr Harold Lief in the
Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease."
My money's on "colossal mistake."
> Or is it more like Radin's book "Conscious universe"? Or more like
> Schmicker's "best evidence" (http://tinyurl.com/5qyeb)? >
If it's anything like the prior link, why should I waste my time?
> And yes, I know what means "burden of proof" - as I also know
> Randi's "open" challenge (I think we have tell this for them whose
> can't to be tested by JREF because of Randi's resistance, like one
> certain "noneating man").
That's OK. I don't know Finnish either.
> Burden of proof doesn't mean that you should force someone to look
> at evidence and evaluating it. In other words, you don't have any
> "burden", in this context, to force anyone to believe that America
> is exist if he don't even want to look or evaluate the evidence for
> America's exist.
True, and since the evidence for America is overwhelming, it would be
as foolish to deny its existence as it would be to affirm the
existence of, say, pixies based on the evidence for them.
> It means only that you should made evidence (or more accurately,
> material that you think can be estimated as evidence) public when
> anyone, who interested in it can reach it and also evaluate it.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html
Yep. Veni, vidi, vamos. I came, I saw, I left (unimpressed).
--
Spencer Hunter, Tucson, AZ
gopher://www.u.arizona.edu:80/hGET%20/%7Eshunter
|
|
| | From: | Happy Dog | | Subject: | Re: Burden of proof (Was: Skeptics vs. parapsychologists) | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:39:15 -0500 |
|
|
| "JP Lassila" wrote in
>>Come up with a novel, testable claim and every
>>skeptic will be interested.
>
> So, is it something like this what you are search for? (This site
> contains lot of claimed evidence for afterlife.)
> http://www.victorzammit.com/
> Or is it more like Radin's book "Conscious universe"? Or more like
> Schmicker's "best evidence" (http://tinyurl.com/5qyeb)?
NO testable claims are presented there. I say that because the authors
themselves don't participate in designing simple experiments that have
easily judgeable outcomes.
>
> And yes, I know what means "burden of proof" - as I also know Randi's
> "open" challenge (I think we have tell this for them whose can't to be
> tested by JREF because of Randi's resistance, like one certain
> "noneating man").
Randi won't test claims that are obviously dangerous to the claimant. It
may be news to you that seriously deranged people apply all the time.
>
> Burden of proof doesn't mean that you should force someone to look at
> evidence and evaluating it. In other words, you don't have any
> "burden", in this context, to force anyone to believe that America is
> exist if he don't even want to look or evaluate the evidence for
> America's exist. It means only that you should made evidence (or more
> accurately, material that you think can be estimated as evidence)
> public when anyone, who interested in it can reach it and also
> evaluate it.
It means that the claimant should stop writing books and calling them
evidence. Design some simple tests and get on with it!
moo
|
|
|
