Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
hereticspl

How much proof is enough?

949 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

hereticspl
4 hours ago, Hawkins said:

That depends how capable humans in digging evidence and how available evidence will appear to humans. What evidence do you have before you swallow that black holes exist? 

Do you do scientific research about black holes till you are convinced by evidence that they exist? That line of reasoning itself is a joke (I won't say that it's your line of reasoning, as offending you is not the point).

I'm at the mercy of the people who have taken the time and resources to study black holes. Que the comments about blind faith. But let me remind you we are talking about hundreds of years of peer reviewed scientific study with a well documented history. So dont tell me its blind faith unless you have evidence to discredit the work of academia. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Mr Walker
On 31/03/2019 at 2:00 AM, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

By the time I was old enough to make choices the stage was set and to be honest I enjoyed a good part of it because I was conditioned by experience.

jmccr8

NO ONE is bound by the circumstances of their birth or their childhood. When one believes so. they are trapped by their belief not by reality.  But i am glad you enjoyed your youth 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
On 02/04/2019 at 4:53 PM, psyche101 said:

Considering your extraordinary claims, it would seem more likely that you admired the characters abilities and decided to adopt that character as your own. 

That might be your thought but it is not what happened. My experiences began around 1960, solidified around 1972, The films were from  1996, by which time i was already  45 years old. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hereticspl
16 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

NO ONE is bound by the circumstances of their birth or their childhood. When one believes so. they are trapped by their belief not by reality.  But i am glad you enjoyed your youth 

So someone born with muscular dystrophy isn't bound by the circumstances of their birth? 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, hereticspl said:

So someone born with muscular dystrophy isn't bound by the circumstances of their birth? 

 No; of course  they are not.

Nor is someone born with no arms or legs 

i would advise reading, " No limits" by Nick Vujicic

quote

Life Without Limits is an inspiring book by an extraordinary man. Born without arms or legs, Nick Vujicic overcame his disability to live not just independently but a rich, fulfilling life, becoming a model for anyone seeking true happiness. Now an internationally successful motivational speaker, his central message is that the most important goal for anyone is to find their life’s purpose despite whatever difficulties or seemingly impossible odds stand in their way. 

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8639945-life-without-limits

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hereticspl
1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

 No; of course  they are not.

Nor is someone born with no arms or legs 

i would advise reading, " No limits" by Nick Vujicic

quote

Life Without Limits is an inspiring book by an extraordinary man. Born without arms or legs, Nick Vujicic overcame his disability to live not just independently but a rich, fulfilling life, becoming a model for anyone seeking true happiness. Now an internationally successful motivational speaker, his central message is that the most important goal for anyone is to find their life’s purpose despite whatever difficulties or seemingly impossible odds stand in their way. 

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8639945-life-without-limits

So by your logic I could jump in the ring with a blind person and it's a fair fight. Or maybe a dwarf or a quadraplegic. They have no excuse for letting me beat them right if they want it bad enough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

NO ONE is bound by the circumstances of their birth or their childhood. When one believes so. they are trapped by their belief not by reality.  But i am glad you enjoyed your youth 

Hi Walker

I wasn't unique, I lived in a society that was the way it was and when I got to the age of 16 I left home and lived by different rules. I did improve my life in several ways, sure you may not understand some of them nor they are not up for discussion. :D

Growing old ain't so bad either as I still have fun.:whistle:

jmccr8

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
6 minutes ago, hereticspl said:

So by your logic I could jump in the ring with a blind person and it's a fair fight. Or maybe a dwarf or a quadraplegic. They have no excuse for letting me beat them right if they want it bad enough?

You are comparing one person with another.

My comment was that, for any individual, it is what the y believe is possible or impossible, which limits them, (or not) rather than any physical disability, or economic circumstance of birth.

Yes there are exceptions, and a person  must live long enough to reach " adulthood", but from then, one makes ones life as one wants it to be, not as it is determined by background or circumstances  

You never know.

A blind person trained in martial arts might kick your butt  Same with a dwarf.  Harder for a quadriplegic, but the y might find other ways to defeat you . The question would then be what the aim or purpose of the fight was and how your opponent could achieve his/her ends in other ways. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hereticspl
2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

You are comparing one person with another.

My comment was that, for any individual, it is what the y believe is possible or impossible, which limits them, (or not) rather than any physical disability, or economic circumstance of birth.

Yes there are exceptions, and a person  must live long enough to reach " adulthood", but from then, one makes ones life as one wants it to be, not as it is determined by background or circumstances  

You never know.

A blind person trained in martial arts might kick your butt  Same with a dwarf.  Harder for a quadriplegic, but the y might find other ways to defeat you . The question would then be what the aim or purpose of the fight was and how your opponent could achieve his/her ends in other ways. 

 

At first you said and I quote "NO ONE" is bound by the circumstance of their birth now your saying that some people are so it's good your making progress. I'll try to put it as simply as possible. People are affected by the circumstances by they're birth and then they make decisions based on those circumstances. One of the circumstances of their birth is the physical makeup of their brain which in turn determines the decisions they make. Does that make sense or am I not explaining that right? Also no there is no blind person or dwarf on this planet that will beat me in the ring regardless of how long they've trained for period. Dont get me wrong I'm not saying I'm a better person than anyone who has dwarfism or is blind they just dont have the tools necessary for that job.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
On 05/04/2019 at 5:18 PM, hereticspl said:

At first you said and I quote "NO ONE" is bound by the circumstance of their birth now your saying that some people are so it's good your making progress. I'll try to put it as simply as possible. People are affected by the circumstances by they're birth and then they make decisions based on those circumstances. One of the circumstances of their birth is the physical makeup of their brain which in turn determines the decisions they make. Does that make sense or am I not explaining that right? Also no there is no blind person or dwarf on this planet that will beat me in the ring regardless of how long they've trained for period. Dont get me wrong I'm not saying I'm a better person than anyone who has dwarfism or is blind they just dont have the tools necessary for that job.

lol NO ONE is BOUND by the circumstances of their birth we are all influenced by it, but it compels no one who reaches " adult" age and can make their own decisions 

" Affected by" is NOT being trapped by or bound by.

A blind  person has a multitude of options,  from despair and  suicide to becoming a role model and educator  eg Helen keller,  Ray Charles and Stevie wonder 

A persons physical make up of the brain does NOT determine anything UNLESS there is a significant medical problem with the brain. Neither do our genes which can influence but not  determine our skills and abilities At some point, loss of brain function renders a person "non- human"  but unless the problem is that serious they still have choices and options 

and just how do you KNOW you can beat a professional dwarven fighter in the ring?  Are you a professional yourself? 

:):) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hereticspl
17 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

lol NO ONE is BOUND by the circumstances of their birth we are all influenced by it, but it compels no one who reaches " adult" age and can make their own decisions 

" Affected by" is NOT being trapped by or bound by.

A blind  person has a multitude of options,  from despair and  suicide to becoming a role model and educator  eg Helen keller,  Ray Charles and Stevie wonder 

A persons physical make up of the brain does NOT determine anything UNLESS there is a significant medical problem with the brain. Neither do our genes which can influence but not  determine our skills and abilities At some point, loss of brain function renders a person "non- human"  but unless the problem is that serious they still have choices and options 

and just how do you KNOW you can beat a professional dwarven fighter in the ring?  Are you a professional yourself? 

:):) 

You know what you may actually have me there I may have spoken out of ignorance about dwarfism that dude is a badass for sure. But I think you missed the other point if it affects you then you are bound by it. If you are born with one leg you can become a faster runner than me no doubt but you would first have to get a prosthetic leg hence he was affected by being born with one leg. And the choices you make are determined by the physical make up of your brain two people born under the same circumstances of blindness one gets depressed and kills himself the other becomes a famous musician why? Because they're emotional reactions were determined by the brain they had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
1 hour ago, hereticspl said:

You know what you may actually have me there I may have spoken out of ignorance about dwarfism that dude is a badass for sure. But I think you missed the other point if it affects you then you are bound by it. If you are born with one leg you can become a faster runner than me no doubt but you would first have to get a prosthetic leg hence he was affected by being born with one leg. And the choices you make are determined by the physical make up of your brain two people born under the same circumstances of blindness one gets depressed and kills himself the other becomes a famous musician why? Because they're emotional reactions were determined by the brain they had.

I m happy with that  Of course a person is affected by the circumstances of their birth and their upbringing 

My point was that, mostly, people are "bound" held captive by their minds and thoughts (eg lack of self belief or confidence)  not their actual potential and abilities  

I dont believe that any one is "held prisoner"  just by the circumstances of their birth or childhood.

One example of this is Ben Carson, one of America's top neurosurgeons, a presidential candidate in,the last elections, and currently  secretary of housing and urban development.

quote

 Carson's Detroit Public Schools education began in 1956 with kindergarten at the Fisher School, and continued through first, second, and the first half of third grade, during which time he was an average student.[24][25] When Carson was five, his mother learned that his father had a prior family and had not divorced his first wife.[26] In 1959, when Carson was eight, his parents separated and he moved with mother and brother to live for two years with his mother's Seventh-day Adventist older sister and her sister's husband in multi-family dwellings in the Dorchester and Roxbury neighborhoods of Boston.[26][27] In Boston, Carson's mother attempted suicide, had several psychiatric hospitalizations for depression, and for the first time began working outside the home as a domestic worker,[26] while Carson and his brother attended a two-classroom school at the Berea Seventh-day Adventist church where two teachers taught eight grades, and the vast majority of time was spent singing songs and playing games.[24]

In his book Gifted Hands, Carson relates that as a youth, he had a violent temper. "As a teenager, I would go after people with rocks, and bricks, and baseball bats, and hammers," Carson told NBC's Meet the Press in October 2015.[45] He said he once tried to hit his mother on the head with a hammer over a clothing dispute, while in the ninth grade he tried to stab a friend who had changed the radio station. Fortunately, the blade broke in his friend's belt buckle.[46][47][48] 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Carson

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29

I think this thread is confuding "proof" and "evidence."  Evidence suggests a results, but may be insufficient to render a judgement.  Proof, on the other hand, is absolute.  If you have proof, then nothing else is needed.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

@Doug1o29

People do use proof for evidence. Just to ask, as the thread title does, how much proof eliminates categorical interpretations of the word, such as mathematicians intend when they ask for proof. The usage disambiguates the term.

The context helps, too. The wild wild web ain't math class :)

  • Like 3
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
On 4/16/2019 at 4:31 PM, Doug1o29 said:

I think this thread is confuding "proof" and "evidence."  Evidence suggests a results, but may be insufficient to render a judgement.  Proof, on the other hand, is absolute.  If you have proof, then nothing else is needed.

Doug

Do you mean "conflating"?

 

Compare the two statements below:

"I have proof that Miss Scarlett killed Colonel Mustard, in the Billiard Room, with the candlestick"

To:

"I have evidence the Professor Plum killed Mrs. Peacock, in the Kitchen, with the pipe wrench"

 

I think most of the forumites here know the difference between the two.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
On 4/16/2019 at 4:31 PM, Doug1o29 said:

I think this thread is confuding "proof" and "evidence."  Evidence suggests a results, but may be insufficient to render a judgement.  Proof, on the other hand, is absolute.  If you have proof, then nothing else is needed.

Doug

Dude, do you know how many people have claimed to have "proved" the earth is flat? Or that vaccines cause autism? Or that fairies exist? Or that Chemtrails are a real thing? Or that someone's in the kitchen with Dina?

"Proof" is now basically whatever you want it to be. It's basically just said to make your belief appear to carry more weight than it actually does.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
1 hour ago, Aquila King said:

Dude, do you know how many people have claimed to have "proved" the earth is flat? Or that vaccines cause autism? Or that fairies exist? Or that Chemtrails are a real thing? Or that someone's in the kitchen with Dina?

"Proof" is now basically whatever you want it to be. It's basically just said to make your belief appear to carry more weight than it actually does.

I'm not exactly sure what point you are arguing... but I would suggest that it is easy (in almost all cases), to verify 'proof' just with a bit of common sense.  Eg there are plenty of simple experiments you can do to show non-flat-earthery, it's easy to look up statistics and studies from across the globe to show autism is unrelated to vaccines and if you apply simple logic, you can even prove that CONtrails must exist, verify that planes should/n't be trailing.. and that 'chem'trails would be the most idiotic, uneffective, and uncoverupable CT ever.  Oh, and you can just visit the kitchen and check the cupboards... :D

It seems to me the problem is simply that our education system doesn't teach 'problem solving' (aka systems analysis).  IMNSHO, the principles of logical thinking and how to verify / find the truth should be taught from grade 0...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

Lame offtopic humour follows...

2 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Compare the two statements below:

"I have proof that Miss Scarlett killed Colonel Mustard, in the Billiard Room, with the candlestick"

To:

"I have evidence the Professor Plum killed Mrs. Peacock, in the Kitchen, with the pipe wrench"

I think most of the forumites here know the difference between the two.

Yep, I looked it over and I think I got this one - a different person was killed!?

 

(sorry..)  :D

PS, Colonel Mustard was almost going to be my avatar when I joined - I always play as him - but it was probably gone anyways..

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
50 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

I'm not exactly sure what point you are arguing... but I would suggest that it is easy (in almost all cases), to verify 'proof' just with a bit of common sense.  Eg there are plenty of simple experiments you can do to show non-flat-earthery, it's easy to look up statistics and studies from across the globe to show autism is unrelated to vaccines and if you apply simple logic, you can even prove that CONtrails must exist, verify that planes should/n't be trailing.. and that 'chem'trails would be the most idiotic, uneffective, and uncoverupable CT ever.  Oh, and you can just visit the kitchen and check the cupboards... :D

It seems to me the problem is simply that our education system doesn't teach 'problem solving' (aka systems analysis).  IMNSHO, the principles of logical thinking and how to verify / find the truth should be taught from grade 0...

I don't disagree with any of that.

My point is that those who peddle bulls**t have become so extremely adept at stealing basically all the terminology of those who speak the truth, that it essentially nullifies and cancels out any real meaning of the terms themselves.

That's not to say that one isn't right while the other is wrong, just that simply saying "this is proven" means basically nothing. It's like saying "I'm right and you're wrong." That may be true, but the words themselves mean nothing. Everyone says that, and most are wrong when they say it, but they say it anyway.

It's basically like the story of "the boy who cried wolf proof." We have so many lies that when someone says "I have proof that this is true" and genuinely does, it's lost amidst the myriad of contrary positions that say the exact same thing.

Asking "How much proof is enough?" is almost pointless to even ask given the number of people constantly spouting off "fake proofs" all over the place. Proof is whatever someone personally considers to be proof, not what actually is proven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
3 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

I'm not exactly sure what point you are arguing... but I would suggest that it is easy (in almost all cases), to verify 'proof' just with a bit of common sense.  Eg there are plenty of simple experiments you can do to show non-flat-earthery, it's easy to look up statistics and studies from across the globe to show autism is unrelated to vaccines and if you apply simple logic, you can even prove that CONtrails must exist, verify that planes should/n't be trailing.. and that 'chem'trails would be the most idiotic, uneffective, and uncoverupable CT ever.  Oh, and you can just visit the kitchen and check the cupboards... :D

It seems to me the problem is simply that our education system doesn't teach 'problem solving' (aka systems analysis).  IMNSHO, the principles of logical thinking and how to verify / find the truth should be taught from grade 0...

Logic uggh.

F->T=T

Used to always do my head in.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, Aquila King said:

Dude, do you know how many people have claimed to have "proved" the earth is flat? Or that vaccines cause autism? Or that fairies exist? Or that Chemtrails are a real thing? Or that someone's in the kitchen with Dina?

"Proof" is now basically whatever you want it to be. It's basically just said to make your belief appear to carry more weight than it actually does.

No one has proved any of that.  Proof is of two natures:

1.  Deductive proof.  Mostly a semantic thing in which all possible alternatives have been eliminated.

2.  A probabilistic model in which 95%, or 99% or 99.9% or 99.99999% of alternatives have been eliminated, leaving one with a conclusion that is right an overwhelming proportion of the time.

This is the type used in courts of law when they speak of "beyond reasonable doubt."  But studies of false convictions have shown that "beyond reasonable doubt" means 94% conviction accuracy.

Lets use the terms correctly.

Doug

 

Edited by Doug1o29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
9 hours ago, Aquila King said:

Asking "How much proof is enough?" is almost pointless to even ask given the number of people constantly spouting off "fake proofs" all over the place. Proof is whatever someone personally considers to be proof, not what actually is proven.

The nice thing about "fake proofs" is that with a little logic, they're fairly easy to spot.  And once spotted, it becomes apparent they are in fact, not proofs at all.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
10 hours ago, Aquila King said:

I don't disagree with any of that.

My point is that those who peddle bulls**t have become so extremely adept at stealing basically all the terminology of those who speak the truth, that it essentially nullifies and cancels out any real meaning of the terms themselves.

That's not to say that one isn't right while the other is wrong, just that simply saying "this is proven" means basically nothing. It's like saying "I'm right and you're wrong." That may be true, but the words themselves mean nothing. Everyone says that, and most are wrong when they say it, but they say it anyway.

It's basically like the story of "the boy who cried wolf proof." We have so many lies that when someone says "I have proof that this is true" and genuinely does, it's lost amidst the myriad of contrary positions that say the exact same thing.

Asking "How much proof is enough?" is almost pointless to even ask given the number of people constantly spouting off "fake proofs" all over the place. Proof is whatever someone personally considers to be proof, not what actually is proven.

The first problem with "proof" is that it is a theoretical thing.  In real life, it doesn't exist.  Even in the sciences it barely exists.  So use of the term "proof" is suspect before the speaker says another word.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
On 4/18/2019 at 11:13 PM, Doug1o29 said:

The nice thing about "fake proofs" is that with a little logic, they're fairly easy to spot.  And once spotted, it becomes apparent they are in fact, not proofs at all.

Doug

About the only true proofs are in fact .. axioms.  :)

At least, that is my current theory..........

:D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.