Evidnece for the super natural

[Iliketurtles]

3 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

 

 

Originally ;

 

 

 

You probably meant ;  " To prove something to another party so they accept it  .....  thy would have to accept it .

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

Yep , thats what I said above .

 

But their lack of acceptance does not negate any proof . Proof must stand on its own and not suffer rejection just becasue some stubborn retard refuses to accept the facts .

 

 

 

sigh ....

 

 

 

But that in no way impacts on  the proofs themselves  .

 

And video certainly is NOT proof !   And who are these 'professionals' whose attendance during filming make the video proof ?

 

Plumbers ?   DOPs ?  Solar panel salesmen?  Helicopter pilots ?

 

 

I think this is pretty simple and clear cut.

 

If I show someone who thinks the earth is flat live footage from the international space station and they claim it was doctored and fake then nothing is proven to them. 

 

Proof by definition is evidence that compels a mind to accept it as true.

 

If a person refuses to accept the evidence, then nothing is proven to them.

 

Also video most certainly can serve as proof to anyone who accepts it as real and accurate.

 

As a specific example of this, I personally accept live footage from the International Space Station as proof the earth is round.  

 

I would also accept drive cam footage as proof if a person stated they did not run a red light.  

 

Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy.

Edited January 17, 2022 by Iliketurtles

[Iliketurtles]

2 hours ago, Shadow_self said:

 

You really do have a problem with making unfounded leaps in logic...perhaps ill shorten my responses so its easier to read

 

1. What I actually pointed out was what Nungali mentioned...that irrespective of whether someone subjectively accepts your attempt to prove an event occured to them, does not take away from the fact that objective evidence does exist...does this make sense?

 

2. You saying " I personally prefer" is fine...I take no issue here. However when you say "x is better than y" well there needs to be something  concrete to back that up. I dont see the argument for it...the fact that memory is fallible does not really nullify testimony...it is just a strike against it...similarly we can make strikes against the use of a video too..If you like, I could make a list of both...you would soon see that niether has any inherent advantage if we are scoring point for point....

 

3. I never said anything of the sort...actually I told you they are both terrible. What I did say was that the accepted standard of evidence in the scientific domain is peer reviewed papers.....and what that is is an account of what someone did, the instructions of how they did it, what they found and what to do next, Nowadays (thankfully) a dataset is usually available to run analyses oneself and check for errors ( we do have ways of looking at data to assess the rigour of collection and potential deviance of authors)..the fact that we can access the data and do this...will always make it trump a video or personal testimony...because you cant jump inside a persons words...and you cant jump inside a tv screen to investigate for errors

 

1,  All evidence can be tampered with and altered. 

 

2.  I am confident that if your personal testimony is that you did not run that red light, and my drive cam shows different that I will win in court and you will lose.  If you want to maintain that personal testimony both oral and written are superior then you are welcome to your opinion.

 

All I can tell you is that I believe firmly video recording is superior to personal testimony,  cops believe this, banks believe this, people with drive cams believe this, and every store owner with a security camera set up also believes this. 

 

If you feel that human memory captures minute details better,  is less fallible, not subject to cognitive and personal biases, not subject to lying, and that video is inferior that certainly is your opinion and you are welcome to it.  I don't think me continuing to ramble on is going to change your mind.

 

3. A written account of what someone did is written personal testimony.  I will concede though, that having multiple other researchers stand up and give their personal testimony that they were able to confirm is more reassuring, and the more that confirm the better I would feel about accepting personal testimony.  Video however of the studies being carried out would be something I would very much value to witness.  

 

 

Edited January 17, 2022 by Iliketurtles

[Iliketurtles]

Let's say someone travels a house that is rumored to be haunted. 

 

They bring along along a physicist, and several other PhDs in relevant fields to run the equipment.

 

They capture crystal clear footage of what appears to be a ghost on video, audio, and thermal imaging. 

 

I personally would accept this as good evidence for the existence of ghosts. 

 

Ultimately there really isn't anything more that could be done short of you being there directly in person to witness the event occur first hand. 

 

Certainly a hoax may have occurred, but making a best case effort to document it is all we can do.

Edited January 17, 2022 by Iliketurtles

[Iliketurtles]

To give another example, when our government releases thermal imagining taken from F18 hornets of UFOS showing objects travelling faster than anything we have ever built, that do not have wings, exhaust, or any visibly discernible means of propulsion.  

 

I accept that is valid evidence for the existence of UFOS. 

Edited January 17, 2022 by Iliketurtles

[Shadow_self]

10 minutes ago, Iliketurtles said:

 

1,  All evidence can be tampered with and altered. 

 

2.  I am confident that if your personal testimony is that you did not run that red light, and my drive cam shows different that I will win in court and you will lose.  If you want to maintain that personal testimony both oral and written are superior then you are welcome to your opinion.

 

All I can tell you is that I believe firmly video recording is superior to personal testimony,  cops also believe this, banks also believe this, people with drive cams believe this, and every store owner with a security camera set up also believes this. 

 

If you feel that human memory captures minute details better,  is less fallible, not subject to cognitive and personal biases, not subject to lying, and that video is inferior that certainly is your opinion and you are welcome to it.  I don't think me continuing to ramble on is going to change your mind.

 

3. A written account of what someone did is written personal testimony.  I will concede though, that having multiple other researchers stand up and give their personal testimony that they were able to confirm is more reassuring, and the more that confirm the better I would feel about accepting personal testimony.  Video however of the studies being carried out would be something I would very much value to witness.  

 

 

 

1. Im glad you understand this..but that wont change the outcome of the discussion unfortunately

 

2. Back to jurisprudence ? (Sigh) Ok...here we go....Keep in mind you should be having this discussion with another person...so please let this be the last time we visit what constitutes evidence in a courtroom....you are speaking with a person in science...so keep it there please

 

Now regards "court"  all this does is influence the subjective opinions of a bunch of people...it still does not lead to objective demonstration of an outcome...rather, it leads to a bunch of random people who did not witness anything testifying that they believe such an event happened ( keep in mind these are everyday people from all walks of life)...So what does this actually achieve??

 

Moreover...despite the above...to even be allowed to be constituted as evidence...it needs to be admissible ....you are now getting into probative vs prejudicial...and a weighting process takes place

 

But for fun...lets put your theory to the test....a murder takes place.....a man has been randomly attacked and killed

 

The defendant has been captured on video...he has killed this person in what appears to be cold blood....He has no recollection of the matter whatsoever....The video evidence shows this happening....these men live in the same building. The man was seen leaving the building, during which time the video captured the defendant walk up behind the man and repeatedly stab him....

 

The prosecution aim for second degree murder.....they have the knife...they have the video...it is an open and shut case right?..Well no...wrong actually

 

During the trial...it comes to light that the man had actually been walking around outside the building for days talking to himself (witnesses on the street)....in distress warning everyone of the oncoming apocalypse....Correspondence with his doctor confirms he has suffered numerous depressive episodes, and is schizophrenic...it turns out he had a full psychotic episode, and as determined by two expert witness consultant psychiatrists...was in the acute phase of that episode....he has no criminal history and is a reserved, isolated individual

 

The testimony of said individuals were instrumental in nullifying what appeared to be an open and shut case with both real evidence (murder weapon) and documentary evidence (video)?

 

Why?

 

Because neither provide context.....and in the legal world....context means everything...

 

But dont take my word for it..go have a search...these types of things happen ALL the time

 

So that confidence you have is unfounded...like I said before.. your argument is very much made with blinkers on....and this is a result of employing false dichotomies (ie  black and white thinking) another logical fallacy

 

Finally, I never said human memory was better or worse than video...please stop with the strawman arguments now...there's already logical fallacies in your reasoning...no need to add more...

 

3. I never said it wasn't..but in this the case of science no....a written account of the  procedure along with the dataset is more valuable than a video ..that is not to say a video could not augment it ( but not as evidence...rather instruction) ...it can....though in science we prefer to use photographs with corresponding commentary....the data is the actual evidence.....the testimony is just the account of the event and how it unfolded

[Iliketurtles]

10 minutes ago, Shadow_self said:

 

1. Im glad you understand this..but that wont change the outcome of the discussion unfortunately

 

2. Back to jurisprudence ? (Sigh) Ok...here we go....Keep in mind you should be having this discussion with another person...so please let this be the last time we visit what constitutes evidence in a courtroom....you are speaking with a person in science...so keep it there please

 

Now regards "court"  all this does is influence the subjective opinions of a bunch of people...it still does not lead to objective demonstration of an outcome...rather, it leads to a bunch of random people who did not witness anything testifying that they believe such an event happened ( keep in mind these are everyday people from all walks of life)...So what does this actually achieve??

 

Moreover...despite the above...to even be allowed to be constituted as evidence...it needs to be admissible ....you are now getting into probative vs prejudicial...and a weighting process takes place

 

But for fun...lets put your theory to the test....a murder takes place.....a man has been randomly attacked and killed

 

The defendant has been captured on video...he has killed this person in what appears to be cold blood....He has no recollection of the matter whatsoever....The video evidence shows this happening....these men live in the same building. The man was seen leaving the building, during which time the video captured the defendant walk up behind the man and repeatedly stab him....

 

The prosecution aim for second degree murder.....they have the knife...they have the video...it is an open and shut case right?..Well no...wrong actually

 

During the trial...it comes to light that the man had actually been walking around outside the building for days talking to himself (witnesses on the street)....in distress warning everyone of the oncoming apocalypse....Correspondence with his doctor confirms he has suffered numerous depressive episodes, and is schizophrenic...it turns out he had a full psychotic episode, and as determined by two expert witness consultant psychiatrists...was in the acute phase of that episode....he has no criminal history and is a reserved, isolated individual

 

The testimony of said individuals were instrumental in nullifying what appeared to be an open and shut case with both real evidence (murder weapon) and documentary evidence (video)?

 

Why?

 

Because neither provide context.....and in the legal world....context means everything...

 

But dont take my word for it..go have a search...these types of things happen ALL the time

 

So that confidence you have is unfounded...like I said before.. your argument is very much made with blinkers on....and this is a result of employing false dichotomies (ie  black and white thinking) another logical fallacy

 

Finally, I never said human memory was better or worse than video...please stop with the strawman arguments now...there's already logical fallacies in your reasoning...no need to add more...

 

3. I never said it wasn't..but in this the case of science no....a written account of the  procedure along with the dataset is more valuable than a video ..that is not to say a video could not augment it ( but not as evidence...rather instruction) ...it can....though in science we prefer to use photographs with corresponding commentary....the data is the actual evidence.....the testimony is just the account of the event and how it unfolded

 

 

 

2.

 

I am referring to what most reasonable people would accept as evidence.  

 

Video is able to capture evidence in a way that personal testimony can never hope to match.  

 

This doesn't have to happen in a court room at all.

 

Ultimately if you ran a red light and say you did not, but my drive cam shows otherwise I can convince most reasonable people you are either lying or misremember the events. 

 

If I decided to have an affair and you had a private investigator film me meeting up with my mistress and going into her apartment, if you took this video to my SO I would get divorced no matter what my personal testimony to her was.

 

In that instance my SO would be justified and reasonable in believing my personal testimony was not accurate. 

 

So let's please stop arguing about this because at this point it's getting silly.

 

3.

 

Written personal testimony can be a lie, and datasets can be altered to support that lie.  e.g. fat makes you fat, sugar does not, as paid for by the sugar industry. 

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html

 

[Zork]

My 2 cents. Evidence can be mathematical in origin. I can prove that the Earth is NOT flat without any audiovisual medium with simple high school math. As a simple exercise, imagine how geostationary satellites would work if the Earth was flat. Now imagine satellites in general. Do you understand what the problem is?

 

The actual problem that one can encounter with biological systems is that the only way to be sure about a phenomenon is to either study it directly in Vivo or observe it through statistics. The latter requires a repeatable experiment with observable metrics in lab conditions with double blind studies using many subjects. Good luck with that....  As for the former i don't need to mention how hard it is.

[Cleansox]

11 hours ago, Iliketurtles said:

 

I am referring to what most reasonable people would accept as evidence.  

Reasonable people tend to say that the level of evidence required depend on the claim. 

A claim that I just committed murder require a different level than for example the claim that I have taken a dump this week. 

 

In that spirit, a claim about something supernatural would, for most reasonable people, require more stringent evidence than something that everyone experience every day. 

Not requiring that would make one gullible, right? 

[Iliketurtles]

1 hour ago, Cleansox said:

Reasonable people tend to say that the level of evidence required depend on the claim. 

A claim that I just committed murder require a different level than for example the claim that I have taken a dump this week. 

 

In that spirit, a claim about something supernatural would, for most reasonable people, require more stringent evidence than something that everyone experience every day. 

Not requiring that would make one gullible, right? 

 

You can make a solid case for something on video (which is superior to oral or written testimony), in a controlled environment, with professionals present to make a best case effort to ensure no funny business is going on. 

 

[Nungali]

17 hours ago, Iliketurtles said:

 

 

I think this is pretty simple and clear cut.

 

If I show someone who thinks the earth is flat live footage from the international space station and they claim it was doctored and fake then nothing is proven to them. 

 

Proof by definition is evidence that compels a mind to accept it as true.

 

If a person refuses to accept the evidence, then nothing is proven to them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Round and round he goes !

 

I  hope you are enjoying this 

 

 

 

Quote

Also video most certainly can serve as proof to anyone who accepts it as real and accurate.

 

So, if someone accepts something as proof to them, it is accepted as proof to them ? 

 

 

You should join the Philosophy department of the University of Wooloomooloo .

 

Spoiler

 

 

Quote

 

As a specific example of this, I personally accept live footage from the International Space Station as proof the earth is round.

 

Pfffft  !

 

I'd bet $500 you thought the earth was already round  BEFORE YOU EVER SAW footage from the ISS !   - Point is, you came to that decision about the Earth's shape from a variety of sources  not just because you saw some video footage from ISS !

 

 

Quote

I would also accept drive cam footage as proof if a person stated they did not run a red light.  

 

 

 

Do you think there would be any difference in validity  between  video driver cam footage presented in a court , ie  footage in a public street with the traffic signals working and a car going through a green light   and   private video camera footage shot in some one's  basement  showing them levitate ?

 

Is the requirement of video evidence the same  if I say ; I can show you a video of me juggling 3 balls to prove I can juggle ,   or I say , I can show you a video of me flying around my yard flapping my arms , as proof I can fly  ?

 

You got things all skew-whiff ...   actually, you have made things all 'skew-whiff '  inside your head ,,, just so you can accept some  stuff you want to believe is true .

Edited January 17, 2022 by Nungali

[Nungali]

16 hours ago, Iliketurtles said:

Let's say someone travels a house that is rumored to be haunted. 

 

They bring along along a physicist, and several other PhDs in relevant fields to run the equipment.

 

They capture crystal clear footage of what appears to be a ghost on video, audio, and thermal imaging. 

 

I personally would accept this as good evidence for the existence of ghosts. 

 

Ultimately there really isn't anything more that could be done short of you being there directly in person to witness the event occur first hand. 

 

Certainly a hoax may have occurred, but making a best case effort to document it is all we can do.

 

James Randi  or a 'Ghost Hunter'  ?

[Nungali]

16 hours ago, Iliketurtles said:

To give another example, when our government releases thermal imagining taken from F18 hornets of UFOS showing objects travelling faster than anything we have ever built, that do not have wings, exhaust, or any visibly discernible means of propulsion.  

 

I accept that is valid evidence for the existence of UFOS. 

 

A pity you missed the threads on this here on DBs when this info first came out  and the various technicalities of such thermal imaging  where discussed .

 

If you dont understand what you are looking at , then any 'evidence' . real or photographic or video will fool you .

 

- one of a set of photographs that fooled people for years , some , even up to today !

 

These photos where posted as recently as 5 years ago on the old defunct Tarot forum. I posted a  link to a Wikipedia article explaining the scam  and how 'historical' and well known it was   used to be ,  'Faire-wanna-bees'  got upset and reported me and mods gave me a  1 week suspension !

[Nungali]

16 hours ago, Shadow_self said:

 

1. Im glad you understand this..but that wont change the outcome of the discussion unfortunately

 

2. Back to jurisprudence ? (Sigh) Ok...here we go....Keep in mind you should be having this discussion with another person...so please let this be the last time we visit what constitutes evidence in a courtroom....you are speaking with a person in science...so keep it there please

 

Now regards "court"  all this does is influence the subjective opinions of a bunch of people...it still does not lead to objective demonstration of an outcome...rather, it leads to a bunch of random people who did not witness anything testifying that they believe such an event happened ( keep in mind these are everyday people from all walks of life)...So what does this actually achieve??

 

Moreover...despite the above...to even be allowed to be constituted as evidence...it needs to be admissible ....you are now getting into probative vs prejudicial...and a weighting process takes place

 

But for fun...lets put your theory to the test....a murder takes place.....a man has been randomly attacked and killed

 

The defendant has been captured on video...he has killed this person in what appears to be cold blood....He has no recollection of the matter whatsoever....The video evidence shows this happening....these men live in the same building. The man was seen leaving the building, during which time the video captured the defendant walk up behind the man and repeatedly stab him....

 

The prosecution aim for second degree murder.....they have the knife...they have the video...it is an open and shut case right?..Well no...wrong actually

 

During the trial...it comes to light that the man had actually been walking around outside the building for days talking to himself (witnesses on the street)....in distress warning everyone of the oncoming apocalypse....Correspondence with his doctor confirms he has suffered numerous depressive episodes, and is schizophrenic...it turns out he had a full psychotic episode, and as determined by two expert witness consultant psychiatrists...was in the acute phase of that episode....he has no criminal history and is a reserved, isolated individual

 

The testimony of said individuals were instrumental in nullifying what appeared to be an open and shut case with both real evidence (murder weapon) and documentary evidence (video)?

 

Why?

 

Because neither provide context.....and in the legal world....context means everything...

 

But dont take my word for it..go have a search...these types of things happen ALL the time

 

So that confidence you have is unfounded...like I said before.. your argument is very much made with blinkers on....and this is a result of employing false dichotomies (ie  black and white thinking) another logical fallacy

 

Finally, I never said human memory was better or worse than video...please stop with the strawman arguments now...there's already logical fallacies in your reasoning...no need to add more...

 

3. I never said it wasn't..but in this the case of science no....a written account of the  procedure along with the dataset is more valuable than a video ..that is not to say a video could not augment it ( but not as evidence...rather instruction) ...it can....though in science we prefer to use photographs with corresponding commentary....the data is the actual evidence.....the testimony is just the account of the event and how it unfolded

 

yes ....   CONTEXT

 

Is it a video of a car going trhough a red light in a public street , or me levitating as I flap my arms in my basement  

[Nungali]

2 hours ago, Iliketurtles said:

 

You can make a solid case for something on video (which is superior to oral or written testimony), in a controlled environment, with professionals present to make a best case effort to ensure no funny business is going on. 

 

 

(Again )    What 'professionals'  ?

[Iliketurtles]

1 hour ago, Nungali said:

 

 

 

 

Round and round he goes !

 

I  hope you are enjoying this 

 

 

 

 

So, if someone accepts something as proof to them, it is accepted as proof to them ? 

 

 

You should join the Philosophy department of the University of Wooloomooloo .

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

Pfffft  !

 

I'd bet $500 you thought the earth was already round  BEFORE YOU EVER SAW footage from the ISS !   - Point is, you came to that decision about the Earth's shape from a variety of sources  not just because you saw some video footage from ISS !

 

 

 

Do you think there would be any difference in validity  between  video driver cam footage presented in a court , ie  footage in a public street with the traffic signals working and a car going through a green light   and   private video camera footage shot in some one's  basement  showing them levitate ?

 

Is the requirement of video evidence the same  if I say ; I can show you a video of me juggling 3 balls to prove I can juggle ,   or I say , I can show you a video of me flying around my yard flapping my arms , as proof I can fly  ?

 

You got things all skew-whiff ...   actually, you have made things all 'skew-whiff '  inside your head ,,, just so you can accept some  stuff you want to believe is true .

 

Ultimately we can only do the best we can do. 

 

Gathering a team of professionals, doing their best to rule out fraud and capturing it all on camera is about as good as we can do. 

 

You can either accept it or reject it.

 

[Iliketurtles]

1 hour ago, Nungali said:

 

A pity you missed the threads on this here on DBs when this info first came out  and the various technicalities of such thermal imaging  where discussed .

 

If you dont understand what you are looking at , then any 'evidence' . real or photographic or video will fool you .

 

- one of a set of photographs that fooled people for years , some , even up to today !

 

These photos where posted as recently as 5 years ago on the old defunct Tarot forum. I posted a  link to a Wikipedia article explaining the scam  and how 'historical' and well known it was   used to be ,  'Faire-wanna-bees'  got upset and reported me and mods gave me a  1 week suspension !

 

So there is a difference between an observational study done with qualified professionals present to do their best to rule out fraud occurring, and capturing that on video, from a photograph someone took and claimed faeries were there. 

 

What I am describing is a best case effort to document a phenomenon. 

 

Short of being there in person I do not know of any better means to document something. 

 

 

 

Edited January 17, 2022 by Iliketurtles

[Shadow_self]

19 hours ago, Iliketurtles said:

 

 

 

2.

 

I am referring to what most reasonable people would accept as evidence.  

 

Video is able to capture evidence in a way that personal testimony can never hope to match.  

 

This doesn't have to happen in a court room at all.

 

Ultimately if you ran a red light and say you did not, but my drive cam shows otherwise I can convince most reasonable people you are either lying or misremember the events. 

 

If I decided to have an affair and you had a private investigator film me meeting up with my mistress and going into her apartment, if you took this video to my SO I would get divorced no matter what my personal testimony to her was.

 

In that instance my SO would be justified and reasonable in believing my personal testimony was not accurate. 

 

So let's please stop arguing about this because at this point it's getting silly.

 

3.

 

Written personal testimony can be a lie, and datasets can be altered to support that lie.  e.g. fat makes you fat, sugar does not, as paid for by the sugar industry. 

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html

 

 

No, you were not referring to that...you mentioned if you were in court you would win...I just explained to you how utterly stupid that statement was, and used a real life example to explain why your ridiculous black and white logic is the language and reasoning of a person looking through a keyhole, and upon learning that there is far more to the situation that what you perceive through said keyhole...you refuse to pull your eye away from it

 

Now you are just moving the goalposts, which is yet another logical fallacy

 

I'm not even going to get into it any further...because the more I correct your woeful logic and nonrational viewpoint...the more logical fallacies you employ...and I don't enjoy conversing with people who are irrational and  demonstrably incapable of even the most basic logical reasoning....

 

Anything can be manipulated to an extent...the question is to what degree....we have already established video holds no place in scientific evidence....we have also understood the inherent weakness in that it is often devoid of context...this is before any manipulation potentially takes place..

 

There is a reason we in the scientific community don't consider video evidence...it is nonsignificant, and objectively proves nothing....now you may want to believe it ...and you are free to your belief...as much as a christian is free to believe in the bible....but the fact that you believe it...does not make it good evidence..

 

Oh it is silly alright...but not for the reasons you think...allow be the shed some light

 

Heres the logical fallacies in your position

 

Appeal to authority

False Dichotomy

Strawman arguments

appeal to hypocrisy ( you refuse to acknowledge the points that nullify your argument)

Special Pleading (Moving the goalposts in this case)

 

And now for the cognitive biases

confirmation bias

belief bias

backfire effect

in group bias ( due  to constant quotes from the WMP "how to argue" 101 playbook, but as you can see.....its neither logical or rational)

 

In effect...your argument is about a strong as a wet cardboard box. I suggest you take some introduction to philosophy classes..it might help your case....because at the moment...you are effectively a lost cause as long as your are attempting to argue with this load of troublesome traits weighing you down

 

This discussion is fruitless...so unless you are willing to address everything ive said, and the criticisms....leave it here, you've made yourself look silly enough already

[Earl Grey]

36 minutes ago, Shadow_self said:

Heres the logical fallacies in your position

 

Appeal to authority

False Dichotomy

Strawman arguments

appeal to hypocrisy ( you refuse to acknowledge the points that nullify your argument)

Special Pleading (Moving the goalposts in this case)

 

And now for the cognitive biases

confirmation bias

belief bias

backfire effect

in group bias ( due  to constant quotes from the WMP "how to argue" 101 playbook, but as you can see.....its neither logical or rational)

 

In effect...your argument is about a strong as a wet cardboard box. I suggest you take some introduction to philosophy classes..it might help your case....because at the moment...you are effectively a lost cause as long as your are attempting to argue with this load of troublesome traits weighing you down

 

This discussion is fruitless...so unless you are willing to address everything ive said, and the criticisms....leave it here, you've made yourself look silly enough already

Does anyone else play bingo whenever these same arguments come up and repeat again and again with the same people? 
 

“B2: posts video of the Chinese whisper, C4: insists video evidence is superior, D5: talks about others being trolls…”

 

It is no wonder thedaobuns was opened where that eternal argument could be kept alive.

[Iliketurtles]

.

Edited January 18, 2022 by Iliketurtles

[Nungali]

3 hours ago, Iliketurtles said:

 

Ultimately we can only do the best we can do. 

 

Gathering a team of professionals, doing their best to rule out fraud and capturing it all on camera is about as good as we can do. 

 

You can either accept it or reject it.

 

 

I certainly reject it , if this is the best you could do .  You have avoided , shifted subject given irrelevant examples and totally ignored and refused to answer the pertinent questions that challenge your theories .  But still go on with them asserting the unproven points in them , eg.  'team of professionals'  ... again !

 

And I know full well why you dont want to answer this point .... I am way ahead of ya !

 

Anyone that HAS TO discuss or debate like that - immediate rejection of the points they are trying to make .

[Nungali]

1 hour ago, Shadow_self said:

 

No, you were not referring to that...you mentioned if you were in court you would win...I just explained to you how utterly stupid that statement was, and used a real life example to explain why your ridiculous black and white logic is the language and reasoning of a person looking through a keyhole, and upon learning that there is far more to the situation that what you perceive through said keyhole...you refuse to pull your eye away from it

 

Now you are just moving the goalposts, which is yet another logical fallacy

 

I'm not even going to get into it any further...because the more I correct your woeful logic and nonrational viewpoint...the more logical fallacies you employ...and I don't enjoy conversing with people who are irrational and  demonstrably incapable of even the most basic logical reasoning....

 

Anything can be manipulated to an extent...the question is to what degree....we have already established video holds no place in scientific evidence....we have also understood the inherent weakness in that it is often devoid of context...this is before any manipulation potentially takes place..

 

There is a reason we in the scientific community don't consider video evidence...it is nonsignificant, and objectively proves nothing....now you may want to believe it ...and you are free to your belief...as much as a christian is free to believe in the bible....but the fact that you believe it...does not make it good evidence..

 

Oh it is silly alright...but not for the reasons you think...allow be the shed some light

 

Heres the logical fallacies in your position

 

Appeal to authority

False Dichotomy

Strawman arguments

appeal to hypocrisy ( you refuse to acknowledge the points that nullify your argument)

Special Pleading (Moving the goalposts in this case)

 

And now for the cognitive biases

confirmation bias

belief bias

backfire effect

in group bias ( due  to constant quotes from the WMP "how to argue" 101 playbook, but as you can see.....its neither logical or rational)

 

In effect...your argument is about a strong as a wet cardboard box. I suggest you take some introduction to philosophy classes..it might help your case....because at the moment...you are effectively a lost cause as long as your are attempting to argue with this load of troublesome traits weighing you down

 

This discussion is fruitless...so unless you are willing to address everything ive said, and the criticisms....leave it here, you've made yourself look silly enough already

 

Wow,   thats what we need ! 

 

A 'blank post form ' , just fill in the minor details but follow this strategy ;

 

Appeal to authority;

... ( insert your own appeals and authority here )

False Dichotomy

.... ( list them here )

Strawman arguments

....  ( and so on )

appeal to hypocrisy ( you refuse to acknowledge the points that nullify your argument)

......

Special Pleading (Moving the goalposts in this case)

....

Confirmation bias

.....

Belief bias

.....

Backfire effect

......

In group bias

.......

 

and tie it up with a big bow of

Psychological projection .

 

now click on 'submit reply' .

[Shadow_self]

10 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

Wow,   thats what we need ! 

 

A 'blank post form ' , just fill in the minor details but follow this strategy ;

 

Appeal to authority;

... ( insert your own appeals and authority here )

False Dichotomy

.... ( list them here )

Strawman arguments

....  ( and so on )

appeal to hypocrisy ( you refuse to acknowledge the points that nullify your argument)

......

Special Pleading (Moving the goalposts in this case)

....

Confirmation bias

.....

Belief bias

.....

Backfire effect

......

In group bias

.......

 

and tie it up with a big bow of

Psychological projection .

 

now click on 'submit reply' .

 

And this is the short form version...Imagine what the long one might look like  

[Nungali]

Unfortunately , I dont have to imagine it .

[Iliketurtles]

[Nungali]

Now its the old 'edit previous posts' tactic  and 'bump the content '