(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?
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.
ok, i give up. i can't convince you nor will you ever convince me.^^