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

@Kairos, It's only fallacy if you say Sasquatch does NOT exist BECAUSE you can't prove it. No one said it doesn't exist. But to say it exists requires proof. To say it does not exist, also requires proof. How do you say something is or is not without direct observance or interaction? The fact of the matter is no one knows one way or the other until evidence is produced to back the claim. Until then, it's considered myth or urban legend. Our only fact is that some people may or may not have seen what they believe to be part man part gorilla or ape, walking through mountains and forests. To prove Sasquatch does not exist is less likely than to prove it does exist. Proving it exists would be easier than the contrary but at this moment in time we would consider both to be equally implausible. If you had Sasquatch hair and you could test the DNA and confirm it's not a known species then you'd have your first step of proof towards existence. If you had supposed Sasquatch hair and you tested the DNA and it appears to be a known species, you have more evidence towards Sasquatch not existing. History dictates we will consider it to not exist or be urban legend/myth until it is proven as fact - as this was the case with other species throughout history during their first discoveries.

How do we determine things like magic are not real? Because all things in the past that have been attributed to magic that we now understand have been identified as technology. Therefore we can draw the conclusion that magic is what individuals call technology which they cannot comprehend. To prove something doesn't exist is to link all evidence of it existing and having it attributed to something you know to be real.
 
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.
Click to expand...


You literally just argued that sasquatch does not exist until it can be "proven as a scientific fact with physical evdience". You further argued you falsify the proposition that sasquatch exists by wearing a costume in the woods.

That is quite fallacious.
 
Kairos said:
You literally just argued that sasquatch does not exist until it can be "proven as a scientific fact with physical evdience". You further argued you falsify the proposition that sasquatch exists by wearing a costume in the woods.

That is quite fallacious.
Click to expand...
Are you inferring that myth's are not real? What if it's myth in this universe but fact in another. If all realities exist simultaneously, quantum physics dictates it both exists and doesn't exist.
 
giphy.gif
 
To crusade against something, you must become it.

Consider that all but the slightest fraction of what we think we know to be true was handed to us on a silver platter by ... other people. Our standards for accepting something as "valid proof" are as flawed and wildly skewed as anything we would provide as the basis for calling something pseudo science.

How do we know the Earth is not flat? Because textbooks and teachers say it is. How do those sources know? Because they were told as well. It all comes back to hearsay, any way you slice it. What we call "proof" is nothing more than an arbitrary decision to trust a given source.

The Pons-Fleischman claim regarding cold fusion was false. How do we know? Our instinctive reaction is to claim that x number of scientists the world over performed the experiment and it failed. How do we know they're telling the truth? Were we there? Or are we simply choosing to believe them? How do we even know that anybody attempted to validate the experiment at all? We don't; we weren't there. We choose to believe certain sources. How many "scientists" of today are claiming that global warming is valid? The average volcanic eruption spews out hundreds of times more CO2 than the whole of humanity has since its inception. If you've done much traveling across the United States alone, you will know that the percentage of available land mass that is actually populated is so small that the mere idea that humans and cattle could even begin to harm the atmosphere is ludicrous. They can create a smog blanket around a city, but that city is so tiny relative to the surface land mass of Earth as to be negligible.

Since we love to have our cake and eat it too, a single "professionally sourced" claim is usually enough to convince us that the claim being set forth is valid, beyond reproach, absolute. But then we declare that thousands and thousands of witnesses to UFO's are all deluded. Were we there to witness what they might have witnessed? No. We simply make an arbitrary choice to believe them or not. Our bases for making such choices is even more flawed: credentials. "Well Dr. Snarkendinkle has a Ph.D. so why would he lie?" That is not scientific. The problem here is that x number of other people with Ph.D. credentials have reported UFO sightings, and we just as arbitrarily declare with absolute finality that we know what they did and did not see.

There is no escaping the circus. Most claims about history, science, etc. trace back to one or two individuals we chose to believe without question. We mistake credentials, the degree of popular embracing of a "fact," and the longevity of such embracing, as "proof." There are few if any criteria for establishing what is proof and what is not, that are not blatantly contradicted within our own personal paradigms many times over - in every case.
 
I love how when we find something out, we don't care about it anymore. Like, I don't wonder or care why the sky is blue - but I used to as a kid. I just think it's funny. Not HA-HA funny but rather weird funny. Less awe-inspiring, but you can appreciate it more.
 
MindUnderMatter said:
Since we love to have our cake and eat it too, a single "professionally sourced" claim is usually enough to convince us that the claim being set forth is valid, beyond reproach, absolute. .
Click to expand...
Having your cake and eating it too is sort of a paradox, because to eat the cake you must have it first, and while you have it, you both want to retain having it and you want to eat it. So really we just need like... 2 cakes.
 
That's the point ... cognitive dissonance. Or living via a conflicting and contradicting paradigm. To use an analogy, social justice warriors condemn the White man for invading the Native American's territories while they move Heaven and Earth to allow the White man's territories to be invaded by illegals. They can't have it both ways but they do anyway. And since DNA tracking (if we choose to believe it's valid) says that all races trace back to Africa, the Native Americans invaded this territory in the first place; if current historical accounts are accurate, the Vikings were here long before them. And they had no horses until the White man came, and at least one chief is quoted as saying that had the White man not come along, the Native Americans would have all killed each other off anyway.
 
MindUnderMatter said:
That's the point ... cognitive dissonance. Or living via a conflicting and contradicting paradigm. To use an analogy, social justice warriors condemn the White man for invading the Native American's territories while they move Heaven and Earth to allow the White man's territories to be invaded by illegals. They can't have it both ways but they do anyway. And since DNA tracking (if we choose to believe it's valid) says that all races trace back to Africa, the Native Americans invaded this territory in the first place; if current historical accounts are accurate, the Vikings were here long before them. And they had no horses until the White man came, and at least one chief is quoted as saying that had the White man not come along, the Native Americans would have all killed each other off anyway.
Click to expand...
Or you know, just get two cakes so you can have it and eat it too. That's exactly what the 1% do.
 
The_Observer said:
Or you know, just get two cakes so you can have it and eat it too. That's exactly what the 1% do.
Click to expand...

If somebody reaches membership in the 1%, it's doubtful they're living in a drastically conflicting paradigm. They are usually in the top 1% of consistency, where self-accountability is the law of the land and they're not very interested in hearing what can't be done and why - or in who owes them what and how come. They simply stand up, move, shake, and make things happen.

In concept it's a good model for somebody wishing to figure out time travel. Most of us construct a paradigm that declares how difficult such a discovery must be, or how easy it could never be. Most of us never even think to change the rules in our own personal realities. Maybe it isn't that difficult, and maybe it's much more within reach than any of us ever considered it could be.

This is barring, of course, any of "us" who might already know how to do it, and are simply not advertising that fact.
 

Top