For those who are recently having difficulty on discerning the two.... Alice has dropped a trail of breadcrumbs to Mrs Witches house. If Bob follows those breadcrumbs, tell me the following: ''Is Bob's trail an evidence or a proof that Alice walked that road?'' Indeed, keep in mind, anyone could have walked that road, so essentially Allice's breadcrumbs are an evidence rather than a proof?'' I can't believe I am explaining this difference on sciforums!!!
You don't need to, we all know the difference. That's why we can tell that what you think is evidence for ETs visiting Earth isn't really evidence, it's closer in nature to a pile of poo.
Oh I am so sorry... you know the difference!!! So basically, everytime in my threads, after giving loads of evidences, which you refuted, you are basically trolling or spamming. Thanks. Case CLOSED.
@Mister -- What it comes down to is that you present evidence....of something....but that's it. Your explanations for the evidence are hardly the only ones, in fact every "case" you've posted here about already has alternative explanations for the evidence that don't require half a million unnecessary assumptions. In fact just about the only explanation for the evidence which could be less parsimonious than your is "god did it". And that's when you do actually present anything. Your words in a thread are not evidence of anything other than that someone typed them. When asked for further evidence, or for links to evidence you claim to have presented, you balk at the idea of having to do actual work to support your line of argumentation or you attempt to shift the burden of proof(no, I'm not talking about actual proof, just the burden to support your argument) to someone else. These are not the hallmarks of a scientifically literate individual, they are the mark of a fanatic believer who will say anything to keep their pet belief alive. You have almost mastered the arts of obfuscation, evasion(you've yet to answer a single question I've asked you), and the logical fallacy. Again, not the hallmarks of a person who's after the truth, whatever it may be, but definitely the signs of someone who's after "their truth" regardless of how valid it is.
Blah blah blah What it comes down to ... is basically... you backtracking. You can't even admit that I had evidence, contrary to proof. Again, that wall of words, to me, is blah blah blah
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=111139 http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=111265 http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=110883 Now I am not here to do barny's speak and spell. Nor am I here to do tiny tots word and learn ... You start applying the difference between evidence and proof, or indeed, I will try my best to have people against your lop-sided, ex-membered ass to Commemorate proper science or just give up, that people do actually add evidence. but rather what you are searching for is absolute proof.
They could be vital clues, or just artefacts. The witch may have also dropped crumbs as she ate her sandwiches. So the crumbs are not evidence till they find something to confirm it e.g. some of her DNA on one of the crumbs or a hair wrapped in a crumb that can be traced back to her. So what would be proof of UFOs? Well there are UFO's end of argument, but if you want to know what they are and where the come from, unless ET returns from home we will be left wondering. There are hallucinations, could there be time warps? Could there be natural phenomena that we have yet to understand? I've seen a UFO, nothing dramatic. Years later I might have imagined UFOs. I have dreamt about UFO's (where they buzzed over us and we were glad there was life other than us in the universe). We have seen some pretty amazing footage of a UFO in the Kaikoura Incident. in NZ. That too was picked up by radar.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
@Mister -- You've given me proof that you haven't provided evidence that ETs are visiting Earth. Thank you very much.
Indeed, THE WHOLE POINT LOL Anyone could have dropped those crumbs which places a considerable line between something considered as an evidence or a pure fact/proof.
Ok I take back what I said. You don't resemble someone who might be retarded. You actually represent someone who refuses to believe such. My retarded brother knows better. He speaks a million words over your actions, which he cannot even conduct. My respect for him is greater, for knowing a difference which you cannot fathom.
No, actually. He provided evidence, potentially, that he has not provided evidence. For example, he could have forgotten posts that included evidence. Also, proof is very rare outside math and syllogistic logic. Generally we work with something like extremely strong evidence as the top end of the scale, at least scientifically. Also the idea that there is no evidence of ETs having contact with the earth earth is fairly silly. That there is insufficient evidence, a common scientific evaluation, is another thing. I think Mister is actually onto something, here. That people come up with counter explanations for what is put forward as evidence of such phenomonena does not mean there is no evidence. But it is insufficient to meet current scientific standards. The degree of the insufficiency matter little in a debate about the confusion of evidence and proof. The two terms are conflated here. I believe you once said there is no evidence that alternative medicine works. That's silly too. You can find thousands of studies showing anti-cancer effects, and virus effects of all kinds of herbal remedies. Whether it is sufficient evidence for these remedies to replace chemo, operations, radiation, and anti-viral patented medicines is the issue.
@Pineal -- What I actually said was that alternative medicine, by definition, is something that's not been proven to work or been proven not to work. And if you'll recall a bit more detail you'll note that I was quoting someone else. Of course, I can expand on that statement that you said I made. There is no evidence that alternative medical treatments work better than a placebo. Of course, none of this invalidates my claims that Mister hasn't provided evidence that ETs are visiting the planet. All he's provided, when he provides anything at all, is evidence of something happening while claiming that because it can't be explained(in his eyes) he can explain it by making some truly gargantuan assumptions. Logically it's garbage. And if that weren't enough he has a well documented habit of ignoring evidence that he doesn't like, and not just evidence either, he's been caught ignoring and outright denying known and documented biological facts too.
