#Login Register

  • 3 Vote(s) - 4 Average

The Third Eye and The Pineal Gland
failboat Show this Post
01-02-2014, 03:35 AM #46
failboat Incognito Anonymous
(01-01-2014, 05:50 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(12-31-2013, 11:55 AM)failboat Wrote:  
(12-31-2013, 08:48 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(12-30-2013, 02:26 PM)failboat Wrote:  
(12-30-2013, 09:44 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  A picture of a cat is not proof. Sorry. I've explained to you what proof would be. It doesn't differ regardless of the claim.

As was said in the beginning, the phrase regarding extraordinary proof has no basis in anything other than being a rhetorical flourish. As such it has worked as a debating device. But upon examination, it has no merit.

if someone proudly showed you a pic of his cat you would believe him without further evidence, right?
but if someone showed you a pic of his pet raptor you would need more evidence to believe him, right? you would need some special proof to believe his very special claim, am I wrong? chuckle.gif

How many times do I need to tell you what I've already told you?

Proof is proof. A photo of someone claiming a cat belongs to them is not proof. If you want to prove (not claim) a cat is yours, you would need to bring it to me and show me a bill of sale. Failing that you'd need to have witnesses testify that they gave you the cat in addition to bringing the actual cat to verify the cat.

Likewise, you'd need to bring the live raptor in with a bill of sale or witnesses.

In either case the evidence that proves the existence and ownership is the same. Nothing extraordinary about either proof.

Pictures are not proof in either case.

The main takeaway from this is the rhetorical dishonesty in the statement "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." It might have come from Dr. Victor Herbert or 'the amazing Randy' or some other disreputable cynic.

It's used as a ruse to deny any and all evidence. They - and they alone - decide what acceptable evidence would be. Randy combines this canard with yet another bit of duplicity. He does magic tricks that are supposed to show that since he can produce a trick that is similar in its effect as the real thing, therefore the real thing is a trick.

That's like saying because there are artificial diamonds, there is no such thing as a real diamond. It's thoroughly dishonest thinking and he knows it.

The "extraordinary proof" meme is verbal sleight of hand. I've shown you how it is false. In the case of people like Herbert and Randy, the meme isn't just untrue - it's a method used to intentionally deceive.

actually the quote came from laplace as far as i know... and not from those hardcore sceptics...
and i didn't ask you those questions for fun. i try to get a point across. i want to show you that your state of view is false by using a reductio ad absurdum.^^

You do realize that the extraordinary claim wasn't the claim of ownership but the claim that raptors are alive and well (which contradicts everything we know about the world → extraordinary)?

So if i showed you the pic of the cat you wouldn't need any special kind of evidence to know that you're dealing with a real cat, right? the pic would be sufficient proof for the existence of cats because the pic of the cat isn't contradictory to everything that is known about how the world works, right? A pic of the cat would be ordinary proof.

if i showed you a pic of the raptor you would need more special evidence - a simple pic is no longer sufficient to prove the existence of dinosaurs because living dinosaurs contradict everything we know. the proof would no longer be ordinary like in the case above but *drum roll* extraordinary.

There would be nothing extraordinary in presenting either one. Either they are presented or they are not.

Let's say I own two diamonds. One bought a $99 diamond from Kay Jewelers and the other the Hope Diamond.

One is an ordinary diamond while the other is extraordinary. Yet the process of proving they that they are both diamonds is the same.

You keep missing the point. The statement that extraordinary proof is required is the ruse here. The premise is false. And it is intentionally put forth in order to create a culture of belief. The cynic always places themselves as the final judge of what is or is not proven/

One tactic is to claim that since 100 studies disprove a claim and only one proves it, then the 100 must be right.

By the same argument in the year 1,400 the world is not round because those 'experts' who oppose the idea outnumber those who support it.

Only one trip around the earth or to the Americas defeats one million opinions to the contrary. Was the trip extraordinary? To the million, yes. But it's quite ordinary to the one who makes it.

It's only extraordinary as measured by the minds who were the most limited.

From my vantage point, proof God exists in the ordinary leaf or the ordinary blade of grass. To the limited mind of the skeptic such a claim is extraordinary. Gas 'knows' when to grow and when to turn water and minerals into the color green and to grow. It's obvious because it happens a quintillion number of times many times over each and every year.

To the skeptic, that isn't extraordinary enough proof.

Meanwhile, if it isn't also extraordinary proof, why can't all the skeptics joined together able to manufacture a single blade of grass? Grass is just ordinary. It's simple, so the skeptic would say. They would refuse to recognize that photosynthesis and growth from a seed are extraordinary because they make the rules, they say.

All the scientists in the world cannot build one seed of grass. Not one. Since we've already discovered the extraordinary, namely that the world is round, but we can't build a seed of grass that can turn into an actual blade of grass, then by definition a seed of grass is extraordinary.

Whoever makes the gazillion seeds in his sleep is quite extraordinary. Yet that extraordinariness is rejected by the rule makers, the cynics, because they make the rules to fit their own desires.

lol.gif ok, i give up. i can't convince you nor will you ever convince me.^^
01-02-2014, 03:44 AM #47
Octo Mother Superior
Posts:43,917 Threads:1,505 Joined:Feb 2011
That's how it usually goes. chuckle.gif Good thread nonetheless.



DISCLAIMER / Terms of Service (TOS):
Kritterbox.com - Socialize anonymously, commentary, discussion, oddities, technology, music and more!  This website is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. kritterbox.com shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site.
This website exists solely for the purposes of exchange of information, communication and general entertainment. Opinions from posters are in no way endorsed by kritterbox.com. All posts on this website are the opinion of the authors and are not to be taken as statements of fact on behalf of kritterbox.com. This site may contain coarse language or other material that kritterbox.com is in no way responsible for. Material deemed to be offensive or pornographic at the discretion of kritterbox.com shall be removed. kritterbox.com reserves the right to modify, or remove posts and user accounts on this website at our discretion. kritterbox.com disclaims all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of any material on this website. Fictitious posts and any similarity to any person living or dead is coincidental.
All users shall limit the insertion of any and all copyrighted material to portions of the article that are relevant to the point being made, with no more than 50%, and preferably less of the original source material. A link shall be visible in text format, embedded directly to the original source material without exception.
No third party links, i.e. blogs or forums will be accepted under any circumstances, and will be edited by staff in order to reflect the original source of copyrighted material, or be removed at the sole discretion of kritterbox.com.
Fair Use Notice:
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science, and technology. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for educational and/or research purposes.
This Disclaimer is subject to change at any time at our discretion.
Copyright © 2011 - 2017 kritterbox.com