View previous topic | View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Agentscott
Joined: 08 Feb 2011 Posts: 1042 Location: Essex
|
Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2011 9:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
There could well be a base on the dartk side of the moon. |
|
... |
|
Back to top |
D B Sweeney
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 Posts: 2842 Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
|
Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2011 10:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Agentscott wrote: | There could well be a base on the dartk side of the moon. |
There could but there's absolutely zero evidence to suggest there is. There could be an alien base on the ocean floor off Puerto Rico, there could be an alien base underground in northern New Mexico but 'could be' is just fanciful speculation.
Without anything resembling factual evidence to support speculation we'll remain in the realms of fantasy and Sci-fi.
DB |
|
... |
|
Back to top |
Agentscott
Joined: 08 Feb 2011 Posts: 1042 Location: Essex
|
Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2011 7:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
And there is also no evidence to say theres not.
There is photos of tower type structures and domes that look alot like buildings but the pics were airbrushed by NASA and then denied as usual.
I also wouldn't rule out Mars because it's more hospiable and also has some confirmed odd features, there is a crater with a dome type structure that looks like a biodome. To put something like that in a crater would be a good idea because of the shelter from the planets weather.
Mars also is a possibility for life in the future and may already harbaor life of some kind, it could well be the next Earth if it gets a bit hotter in the near future. |
|
... |
|
Back to top |
D B Sweeney
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 Posts: 2842 Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
|
Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2011 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
And there is also no evidence to say theres not.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of a number of central principles of science. It reflects a variety of logical fallacies and mistakes of reason. These include:
argumentum ad ignorantiam;
a misunderstanding of the difference between the evidence of absence and the absence of evidence;
a misunderstanding of the principles of falsifiability and sufficiency;
a shifting of the burden of proof.
These, along with other contextual issues are discussed below.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam basically means the argument to ignorance. The underlying fallacy from the argument to ignorance is when it is argued that something must be true, purely and simply because it has not been proved to be false (or vice versa). Carroll (2004) suggests, this fallacy could also be called the “fallacy from lack of sufficient evidence to the contrary” (Carroll, 2004; pp115). The fallacy of the argument to ignorance is not based in any one individual in an argument being ignorant – it is thus not directed to the individual. The notion of ignorance relates to the form of the argument itself. In this case, to there being ‘no evidence’ and thus, we are ignorant of the potential truth. The crucial point to keep in mind here is that an inability to disprove a claim does not automatically mean that the claim being made is true. An individual might make the claim that he / she can run the 100 metres sprint in under seven seconds (which would be the fastest ever recorded). However, if the person refuses to be tested in a race, our inability to falsify the claim does not make the claim true by default. If this was the case, anybody making a claim like this would be eligible for an Olympic gold medal, without ever having to run a single race!
A similar fallacious argument to ignorance would be one that states “as nobody can prove God did not create the universe, it must therefore be true”. The lack of evidence means nothing either way. The fallacy also works in the other direction as well. For example, a statement like; “Of course apparitions do not exist, nobody has provided any proof that they are indeed real” is also an error in reasoning committing the same fallacy. In science, we can make the valid assumption that from the lack of evidence, something has not occurred. However, we cannot conclude with absolute certainty that it has not occurred.
One mistake related to the argument to ignorance is to falsely interpret the absence of evidence as being equal to that of there being evidence of absence. Clearly they are not equal. The crucial point is that although science may not be able to disprove a claim, this is not evidence in support of the claim. Science accepts claims, not just on the basis of the absence of evidence but mainly on the presence of confirming evidence (i.e., positive evidence). There must be positive empirical evidence for accepting any claim or argument as being true. The lack of any evidence itself is not direct support of an alternative paranormal theory. It is completely neutral on the matter. The absence of evidence for Creationism does not, on its own, provide support for the theory of Evolution. The theory of Evolution requires its own positive evidence to establish it as a truth. The confusion over the absence of evidence being the same as evidence of absence is also related to some misunderstandings over the notion of falsification in science.
The principal of falsifiability states that in order for any claim to be held as a scientific truth – it must be falsifiable. That is to say, we must be able to test it and falsify it. The rule of falsifiability is an assurance that if the claim being made is indeed false, then the evidence will show it is false; and if the claim is true, then the evidence will not disprove it. In the latter case we can accept the claim as a provisional account of ‘truth’ until such time as further evidence is produced which disproves it (thus, it is a provisional truth). Therefore, the rule of falsifiability makes the explicit commitment that the evidence must matter and has to matter in a well reasoned scientific argument. If we cannot test the claim being made then that claim is no more true, than it is false. The problem with pseudoscience is that many of their claims are not testable – yet this absence of evidence is often taken as direct support for the claim. As noted above, if the absence of disconfirming evidence were to be taken as proof for a claim, then it is conceivable that we could show anything to be true – even when it is totally false. In addition to this, Lett (1990) notes, this type of faulty reasoning is also related to the concept of ‘sufficiency’. That is to say, any evidence recruited in support of a claim must be sufficient to establish the truth of that claim, in the manner in which it was made. The absence of disconfirming evidence for a particular claim, is not sufficient on its own to establish the truth of that claim. This type of reasoning is also relevant to a related error, that of it being up to science to disprove the existence of the paranormal. The discussion above shows clearly why this type of reasoning is incorrect and not a viable criticism of science at all.
Finally, another error in reasoning underlying these types of arguments relates to the burden of proof. It is not the job of science to disprove such claims (any claims). Indeed, science maintains that this is logically impossible. The burden of proof always rests with those making the claims. In other words the claimant must furnish the claim with good quality evidence, reason and logic. If a scientist argues that all species evolve through a process of natural selection, then he / she needs to support that claim with positive evidence for that process. If a parapsychologist argues that the mind is separate from the brain and can survive bodily death, then he / she also needs to support that claim with positive evidence. It is unsound to argue that the absence of evidence alone, due to:
a failure of science disproving claims; and
shifting the burden of proof onto others, somehow supports the claim being made.
The burden of providing positive evidence lies with those making the claims.
DB |
|
... |
|
Back to top |
thecactus
Joined: 07 Mar 2011 Posts: 3196 Location: Northern Ireland
|
Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2011 8:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
there is also the faces of mars |
|
... |
|
Back to top |
Agentscott
Joined: 08 Feb 2011 Posts: 1042 Location: Essex
|
Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2011 8:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thats true Cactus, they are freaky!
It's that dome though that tells me something may well be up there, that combinded with the planets future potental.
DB it is imposible to say for sure that there is or there is not, despite all that earlier I think there is a posiibility of bases, I don't need it on paper to tell me that there is nothing there, I know aliens may well have made underground bases and though can't say for sure I can build up a likley list and then use intuition to do the rest.
Mainstream can't be trusted for facts after seeing how they deal with the UFO issue, so they may well be there and denied.
We cant see for ourselves so we have to take the mainstream peoples word for it.
And with all the corrupness that is becoming tricky. |
|
... |
|
Back to top |
D B Sweeney
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 Posts: 2842 Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
|
Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2011 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mainstream can't be trusted for facts after seeing how they deal with the UFO issue
Why would mainstream science deny aliens/ufos'?. Any evidence of either would be welcomed by all scientists, especially the physicists and astrophysicists. Who are the people you think are covering all this up and why Agentscott?.
DB |
|
... |
|
Back to top |
Agentscott
Joined: 08 Feb 2011 Posts: 1042 Location: Essex
|
Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 8:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's a combination of the main names we know...
NAS*, R*F and most probobly SET*, M*D, ect..
I won't write them as I don't want to get collard by them and end up getting a visit, I think you should be able to work them out.
These guys are probobly just doing their jobs the way they have been taught but there will be the big bosses controlling how and what goes public and they most probobly answer to top secret organisations at the top.(beyond the Gov)
They will be denying these isues because of many reasons so I can only guess but I bet it's more complex then the obvious first thoughts like religon and mass panic.
I would suspect that money comes in somewhere too. |
|
... |
|
Back to top |
thecactus
Joined: 07 Mar 2011 Posts: 3196 Location: Northern Ireland
|
Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 10:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
knowledge is power |
|
... |
|
Back to top |
Inn Spectre
Joined: 15 Sep 2009 Posts: 118
|
Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 11:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Agentscott wrote: | There could well be a base on the dartk side of the moon. |
The Moon doesn't have a dark side.
Last edited by Inn Spectre on Fri Apr 08, 2011 2:01 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
... |
|
Back to top |
thecactus
Joined: 07 Mar 2011 Posts: 3196 Location: Northern Ireland
|
Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 11:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Inn Spectre, i thought it did? what about the underside? |
|
... |
|
Back to top |
Inn Spectre
Joined: 15 Sep 2009 Posts: 118
|
Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 2:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
thecactus wrote: | Inn Spectre, i thought it did? what about the underside? |
How can a sphere in space have an underside? You must be one of those Irishmen who thought it was safe to travel to the Sun at night. |
|
... |
|
Back to top |
Agentscott
Joined: 08 Feb 2011 Posts: 1042 Location: Essex
|
Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The far side then, apolagies for my missconseption.
Technicly though a sphere cant be lite from all sides at once by one sun so it does really.
Try shining a torch at a snocker ball, it will have a dark side just like any other planet or ball.
|
|
... |
|
Back to top |
thecactus
Joined: 07 Mar 2011 Posts: 3196 Location: Northern Ireland
|
Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2011 1:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
sorry inn i didnt realise you reside in a mental asylum or i wouldnt have troubled you |
|
... |
|
Back to top |
bitterbuck1 Moderator
Joined: 18 Nov 2006 Posts: 3963 Location: Arizona, USA
|
Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2011 9:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Inn Spectre wrote: | Agentscott wrote: | There could well be a base on the dartk side of the moon. |
The Moon doesn't have a dark side. |
I don't know about that Inn Spectre, Pink Floyd said there was a
"dark side of the moon". |
|
... |
|
Back to top |
|