Is there any current confirmed TIME TRAVELERS ON HERE NOW???

[Kairos]

And saying you debunked some idea because nobody "proved" it to you is not only juvenile by fallacious and counterproductive to intellectual discourse. If something wasn't proved, then it simply wasn't proved. That's it. It's not disproven. Disproving something is a great deal more difficult, oftentimes impossible, and it deserves special recognition when done properly. Just declaring nobody provided you with scientific proof so it's untrue is so lazy as to deserve an ass kicking.

 

[The_Observer]

Exposing frauds where it comes to various abilities is easy. You just ask them to perform the trick and look for how they did it. Hire some magicians to watch everything.

But I don't think some of this paranormal shit is conducive to just using it like you are turning on a light. It's not accurate and it's not on demand.

That sounds like verificationism but with extra steps. By the way, verificationism is the reproduction of a claim to prove it's falsifiable or reproducible.

 

[The_Observer]

And saying you debunked some idea because nobody "proved" it to you is not only juvenile by fallacious and counterproductive to intellectual discourse.

No one said that. I didn't debunk anything. Randi debunked psychics by providing controlled environments for them to perform in to rule out external or third party stimuli from interfering.

 

[Kairos]

No you don't need to prove it, all humans take shits and we have the facts to back that up. If you wanted to prove it, a photo would suffice if taken by a third party - or you could scoop up the shit and mail it to me. You could also do a video documentation of you shitting, or provide all the facts and science behind why human's take shits, then prove you are a human by providing some DNA samples. I will require all of your hair, saliva, and blood, to verify you are human. Unfortunately this means you will die, but that's a risk I am willing to take.

But that's your problem. You say that because you have prior probability that humans are likely to take a shit in the morning. You have ZERO knowledge about paranormal shit that may or may not be true. Let's be honest, it's probably horse shit, but you do not know for sure. You cannot claim that you need no proof that I took a shit this morning at 0730 EST but you need proof that some yahoo saw a sasquatch in the national forest last night. Further, he could give you all the same kinds of evidence that would satisfy you in the former case, but you'd balk in the latter case. You balk because you know your heuristic is bullshit. You just believe one thing and not the other, just as some people here believe all sorts of weird shit but not other weird shit.

 

[Kairos]

That sounds like verificationism but with extra steps. By the way, verificationism is the reproduction of a claim to prove it's falsifiable or reproducible.

Verificationism is the application of the scientific standard of falsifiability to anything other than a falsifiable scientific statement. Literally, that is the only place falsifiability applies.

I cannot apply falsifiability to sasquatch, for example, because the statement that Billy Bob Bumpkiss saw a sasquatch on his fishing trip is not a falsifiable statement. I can't repeat it. I can't duplicate it. I can't test it. I can only ask for evidence. The amount of evidence I require to believe him is roughly proportionate to my bias for or against his claim. I admit that bias. People like you do not. I find it utterly dishonest.

 

[Kairos]

Somebody proving they are a time traveler is not primarily a scientific problem. You would only use science to examine his claims and test his evidence. You cannot ultimately verify or refute the story with science. That's not what science is. This atheist santa boob is a fraud himself. Fake science entertainers are a cancer upon western civilization.

These kinds of claims are more like what a detective deals with, not a scientist. It might involve science. It might even heavily involve science. But it's not inherently a scientific problem.

 

[The_Observer]

But that's your problem. You say that because you have prior probability that humans are likely to take a shit in the morning. You have ZERO knowledge about paranormal shit that may or may not be true. Let's be honest, it's probably horse shit, but you do not know for sure. You cannot claim that you need no proof that I took a shit this morning at 0730 EST but you need proof that some yahoo saw a sasquatch in the national forest last night. Further, he could give you all the same kinds of evidence that would satisfy you in the former case, but you'd balk in the latter case. You balk because you know your heuristic is bullshit. You just believe one thing and not the other, just as some people here believe all sorts of weird shit but not other weird shit.

I feel you're in a parallel universe to my own for I'm not following your logic. What exactly, is my problem that you are referring to? Your wanting to scientifically prove a claim of taking a shit is invalid. Go tell that statement to anyone, and no one will ask for proof or have follow up questions because it's not of interest and it's not seemingly unexplainable or magical. Why you'd need to verify or prove something we already know is beyond me.

I can take an educated guess that you believe in the paranormal which is where this is all stemming from. You're triggered by James Randi, aren't you? Does his method of debunking boil your blood? You know, James isn't requiring the other party to prove their claim. James is providing a controlled environment in which they can perform their ability so James may observe and determine if it's false or fact. So if we go back to your shit analogy, you wouldn't need to prove you took a shit. I would provide an environment for you to take a shit in so I can observe you shitting.

 

[The_Observer]

Verificationism is the application of the scientific standard of falsifiability to anything other than a falsifiable scientific statement. Literally, that is the only place falsifiability applies.

I cannot apply falsifiability to sasquatch, for example, because the statement that Billy Bob Bumpkiss saw a sasquatch on his fishing trip is not a falsifiable statement. I can't repeat it. I can't duplicate it. I can't test it. I can only ask for evidence. The amount of evidence I require to believe him is roughly proportionate to my bias for or against his claim. I admit that bias. People like you do not. I find it utterly dishonest.

If Sasquatch is real, you need to realize that almost all sightings or recanting are either misunderstood or outright lies. Sasquatch is a myth until it can be proven as scientific fact with physical evidence. I can easily falsify Sasquatch. Just get a Sasquatch outfit and run amuck in the woods and I guarantee you, you'll be on YouTube on some grainy video shot from a potato.

 

[Kairos]

If Sasquatch is real, you need to realize that almost all sightings or recanting are either misunderstood or outright lies. Sasquatch is a myth until it can be proven as scientific fact with physical evidence. I can easily falsify Sasquatch. Just get a Sasquatch outfit and run amuck in the woods and I guarantee you, you'll be on YouTube on some grainy video shot from a potato.

THAT is the fallacy in a nutshell. A statement is not false until proven true. That's fallacious reasoning.

If a sasquatch walked into downtown Olympia tomorrow morning and smacked some hipster's head off, besides being funny, it wouldn't somehow mean that sasquatch only just began existing the day we all saw him walk into town and start cleaning the place up of the degeneracy.

Or, in the sense of North America, it didn't suddenly come into existence when humans first found it. It was always there. If your statement above were true, then North America did not exist until some paleolithic dude tried to escape his wife across the Bering land bridge and it magically came into existence.

Nor is proving how you can hoax something a refutation that the something you hoaxed exists. Sasquatch could exist out there somewhere, and your putting on a gorilla costume does not make him suddenly not exist.

This is all shitty new atheist reasoning. It's nonsense. Stop reading that garbage. It's fallacious and has nothing to do with real science.

 

[Kairos]

And if you want to get into sasquatch.. Though I realize it's slightly off topic, I think it serves a better example for why this line of thinking is so bad than time travel, which has little evidence to support it.

There exist very good reasons to suspect there did in fact exist a sasquatch in historical time, and those reasons boil down to simple parsimony. The stories of this creature/manlike-thing abound clear across North America, amongst completely separated peoples, and all the way into Central Asia. They are all pretty much the same thing.

Then you have historical accounts of these creature in our own nation's history. Settlers described them as wild men. You can go back to newspaper clippings from the 1800s and the stories recorded of these creatures are very similar to many of the reports we get today. The same kinds of behaviors: wood knocking, curiousity, the aggression, stealing things, etc.

That doesn't prove a damned thing definitively, but it does create a problem for Team Does Not Exist, since now they have to come up with some explanation for how completely isolated peoples spread across half the Earth's surface, and people spanning at least two centuries of recorded history describe the exact same creature. That's a little odd.

That you can put on a monkey suit and get shot in the national forest I think is amusing, but it does not somehow disprove a damned thing. There exist more reasons to believe this creature at least existed in the past than not.

Nor is this a scientific problem. Discovering a new species is not a science experiment. You have to go out and record the creature, collect physical evidence, run the DNA, and figure out what it is is, exactly. A scientific problem is something like do black holes produce thermal radiation, yes or no? If you take the negative, your statement is falsifiable by simply collective evidence of thermal radiation from a black hole. That is how falsifiability works.