Anthony Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rick Baudé Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > It isn't the job of the debunker to provide
> proof
> > but it is certainly the job to provide
> contra
> > evidence. For instance if I say UFO's exist
> and
> > provide evidence in the form of various
> pieces of
> > metal that I found in my backyard, and
> somebody
> > else denies their existence out of hand
> accusing
> > me of planting the evidence that hardly
> > constitutes debunking the evidence.
>
>
> The debunker need only demonstrate that you don't
> have a back yard. He doesn't need to do a
> metallurgical analysis as well.

True. But lets start with the fact that I do have a backyard and lets assume that I have found metal pieces with bizarre properties. Is it from a UFO or did it drop off from one of the military planes that fly overhead on an almost hourly basis? Of course I'd go with the military plane. But if the military flatly refuses to cooperate in the investigation then the UFO factions gains some credibility.


> >
> > EVen though logic is essential to many
> subjects
> > you also have to pick and choose when to
> apply it.
>
>
> Not if you are having a logical debate regarding
> evidence. It's like claiming you can pick and
> choose when to apply logic when doing a geometry
> proof. Of course you can't.

Geometry and logic are almost interchangeable. So I consider that to be a special case argument. On the other hand what constitutes 'evidence' and what constitutes 'irrelevant background noise'? Is a much more difficult question to answer.
>
>
> > After all logic can get you the wrong answer
> as
> > fast as it can get you the right answer.
>
> Not really. Incomplete data can get you to the
> wrong answer, even in the most logical of
> contexts.

EXACTY...Which is why I've become very hesitant to judge anything these days. Even the most iron-clad arguments can have little bits of rust that build up demolishing the machinery of logic.
>
> Logic, however, is not what is at fault. You're
> shooting the messenger; treating the symptom;
> overusing cliches. Oh wait, that's me.

LOL! I wouldn't dream of shooting the messenger! Though I do recall a poem from Robt. Frost about a messenger tasked with delivering some bad news that an army is approaching and will destroy the kingdom. As the messenger thinks about it, he realizes he's going to be killed the moment he delivers it. So he runs away rationalizing that the recipient is going to get the bad news anyhow when the army shows up, so why should he get killed over it?
>
>
>
> > After all
> > the cemetaries are filled with people who
> made a
> > 'logical' choice and wound up dead.
>
> Driving home from work is a logical choice.
> Getting hit by a drunk driver is a consequence of
> someone drinking too much before getting behind
> the wheel and has nothing to do with your choice
> of driving home from work.

Let's look at it from Michael Jackson's point of view then. He couldn't get to sleep using any of the common sedatives. So, he made the logical decision to have his doctor inject him with prescription sedatives. He had done this hundreds of times before without incident. So, he pursued the logical path of having another injection and the rest is tragedy.
>
>
>
> > To demand
> > proof from the debunker is, of course, to
> turn the
> > discussion into an academic spitting contest.
> For
> > the debunker to provide a credible
> alternative
> > that can withstand withering criticism and
> > ultimately stand triumphant is what the game
> is
> > all about IMHO.
>
> The debunker need not provide a viable
> alternative. He need only show that the proposed
> theory is flawed, and it therefore must be deep
> sixed.

True. But if the debunker does provide a viable alternative then they have reached the acme of skill.
>
>

>
> History is the study of objective events that
> occurred within a subjective context.
>
>