The earth is flat.

Estominala

Estominala

Active Member
ricky1lung said:
Oh?
They've explained how they aim to avoid most of it.
They also explain how they protect against radiation.

You might want to take another look.
Click to expand...
Lol you might want to look at the actual research you know cited articles by scientists.
 
Last edited:
tyler.durden

tyler.durden

Well-Known Member
The burden of proof always lies with the party making the positive claim, it is not on others to disprove said claim. Duh. Let's not waste time on arguments from ignorance, which seems to happen often around here...



Philosophic burden of proof

This article is about burden of proof as a philosophical concept. For other uses, see Burden of proof (disambiguation).
In epistemology, the burden of proof or onus probandi is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.

Holder of the burden
When two parties are in a discussion and one affirms a claim that the other disputes, the one who affirms has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim -i.e., X is good/true/beautiful, etc.[1] An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[2][3] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition, but is not valid reasoning.[4]

Shifting the burden
Fallacious shifting of the burden of proof occurs if someone makes a claim that needs justification, then demands that the opponent justify the opposite of the claim. The opponent has no such burden until evidence is presented for the claim.

Falsifiability
See the main article on this topic: Falsifiability
Often, someone will present a new idea and say that it must be accepted because it cannot be disproved. This is insufficient because without evidence there is no reason to accept an idea, even if there is no contrary evidence. One example is that of a simulated reality, which proposes that the human race does indeed live in The Matrix and we are a computer simulation. There is no evidence against this idea, in fact, it may be impossible to fully disprove, but as there is no real evidence for it there is no reason to accept the idea as real. Another famous example is the teapot proposed by Bertrand Russell, the existence of which cannot be disproved.

Exceptional claims
See the main article on this topic: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
Indeed, if one is making an exceptionally bold claim (such as with alternative medicine that claims miraculous cures) then exceptional evidence is expected in its support.
 
charface

charface

Well-Known Member
I think the flat earth theory will turn out to be a specific form of mental illness, like hearing voices.
Not kidding, not bashing mental illness but you have to have a really deep need
to latch onto this one.

Or just be troll

Or both.
 
ricky1lung

ricky1lung

Well-Known Member
charface said:
I think the flat earth theory will turn out to be a specific form of mental illness, like hearing voices.
Not kidding, not bashing mental illness but you have to have a really deep need
to latch onto this one.

Or just be troll

Or both.
Click to expand...
There was someone else blasting this same stuff here not long ago.
Same person?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top