You can't compare humanities with science.

Science and the scientific method are simply tools to better understand the world around us. There's no need to compare it with humanities; it complements it. If you would like to answer the question of "Are we alone?" and "Is there a greater, all-knowing, unseen power?" we must find evidence to have reason. If there's no evidence, then there's no reason.

As I have long suspected, the juries are still out on those two statements, but I think Bob and no-name are both partly right. Perhaps it would have been better to have prefaced both those statements with "In terms of our current knowledge ....", and ended them with "but there is no reason why searching for evidence of him/her/them shouldn't happen by those interested enough".

Those additional statements are all fine and well, but originally you're still proposing a logical fallacy. To approach any topic and state "No one can prove it and no one can disprove it..." completely ignores allowing evidence to bring a conclusion.

Mind you a conclusion doesn't mean our reasoning is correct. It is simply a conclusion based upon our current level of understanding with our current tools at hand.

You cannot prove that something doesn't exist, A single example will, conversely, prove that it does exist.

So then UFO's are a matter of faith then? :-)

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

There is plenty of video evidence of Unidentified Flying Objects. There is absolutely no evidence that any of them are alien spacecraft.

Like I tried to state earlier, how can you scientifically study something that has no evidence to study?

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

I hope that if I am ever abducted by aliens, first that they don't bring me back but if they do I'll remember to grab some small insignificant artifact that proves I was there Maybe they could fix my body which would be proof enough for me.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

There is plenty of video evidence of Unidentified Flying Objects. There is absolutely no evidence that any of them are alien spacecraft.

Yes, correct.

Both of the above statements are correct. There are those that are simply not interested in finding ET, therefore totally refute any slight indication that they might be there or exist. There are those that have more open minds and wonder if it might be possible, and what the ramifications of that might be if it were true.

Completely disagree with the statement in bold. Not everyone who refutes bad conclusions are "simply not interested in finding ET". Some of us actually want to examine the evidence at hand to bring a conclusion. If we are going to believe that aliens exist, we better make damned sure that the conclusion is correct and aren't just the modern day equivalent to ghost stories.

And you're absolutely wrong if you think skeptics aren't open minded enough. Its not a matter of open-mindedness; its a matter of making sure the evidence supports the conclusion.

To approach any topic and state "No one can prove it and no one can disprove it..." completely ignores allowing evidence to bring a conclusion.

I don't think it does do that. If anything it states what the current position is. It then goes on to challenge anyone to find any evidence one way or the other. What we don't want is to stand still with just current knowledge.

I propose that I can fly by self-propulsion. I refuse to prove to anyone that I can fly, and refuse to fly when anyone is looking. No one can prove it and no one can disprove that I can fly.

The above statements do not challenge anyone to find evidence. It discourages anyone from even trying. If I can't provide strong evidence for a wild claim, then likely I am a liar or am delusional. If I can provide strong evidence for my wild claim, then I need to provide it lest people think me a liar or delusional. Otherwise we are at the standstill you said we don't want.

Therefore, the statement "no one can prove and no one can disprove..." does exactly as I originally stated. It provides a logical fallacy to which no approach will work. Thus, we have developed the scientific method as a way to discover the reality of the world around us. Using the scientific method approach, we only allow evidence-based reasoning to draw conclusions. Anything else is pure fantasy, fiction or faith.

Like I tried to state earlier, how can you scientifically study something that has no evidence to study?

If it exists in our reality, there must be a way to gather the evidence. If there is absolutely no evidence, then we must conclude the idea/claim is untrue.

Like I tried to state earlier, how can you scientifically study something that has no evidence to study?

If it exists in our reality, there must be a way to gather the evidence. If there is absolutely no evidence, then we must conclude the idea/claim is untrue.

That is EXACTLY how we deduce a Designer. There is absolutely evidence for a Designer. The design is all around you. And one must put aside the thought of chance.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Like I tried to state earlier, how can you scientifically study something that has no evidence to study?

If it exists in our reality, there must be a way to gather the evidence. If there is absolutely no evidence, then we must conclude the idea/claim is untrue.

That is EXACTLY how we deduce a Designer. There is absolutely evidence for a Designer. The design is all around you. And one must put aside the thought of chance.

1. This thread isn't about Intelligent Design.

2. The "evidence" provided for Intelligent Design is very often misunderstood, misinterpreted, and frequently fabricated to force what they believe to be evidence to fit their conclusions.

I propose that I can fly by self-propulsion. I refuse to prove to anyone that I can fly, and refuse to fly when anyone is looking. No one can prove it and no one can disprove that I can fly.

That is not the same thing at all. The logical answer to that sort of statement is "put up or shut up". The sort of answer that Johnney Guinness got when he said similar things.

It is the same thing - and precisely! People want evidence. There is no room for "No one can prove and no one can disprove..." If no one can do it, then why bother with the idea in the first place?

Therefore, the statement "no one can prove and no one can disprove..." does exactly as I originally stated. It provides a logical fallacy to which no approach will work.

Sorry I disagree. Those statements give a summary of the current position. They "invite" and "suggest" that people may want or like to investigate further, to change the status quo. That is different to "I am saying a wild idea, want to try to shoot me down?"

I believe in a God, and no one can prove or disprove He exists. I believe in alien visitations here on Earth, and no one can prove or disprove they are not. Want to shoot me down?

Seems to me like it is exactly the same thing.

Your statements don't give a summary of the current position. They suggest that no one can prove otherwise to a claim, so it may as well be a wild idea. There must be a way to gather supporting evidence for a conclusion or its just a wild claim.

Really, your point of view is purely about psychology. Similar to your claims of "99% of all UFO evidence can be explained but 1% cannot". Its psychologically satisfying to you to believe in that 1% (which also happens to be another made-up statistic), just like its psychologically satisfying to you to believe no one can prove or disprove certain ideas. You may believe this provides open-mindedness, but in reality it provides logical fallacies to continue to believe in modern day ghost stories.

I thought I'd point out the flaw in the logic that's so prevalent in both people who believe in alien visitations on Earth and in those who believe in the existence of a God. The logic is the same between both people, and I think if the flaw can be pointed out, perhaps it might make them approach things from a more empirical perspective.

At the end of the day here, we are bandying words about subjects that may never ever get resolved, is all this effort worth it?

I value good discussion, and I thought I'd speak up. In my opinion, its always worth the effort to speak up if it helps someone.

Like I tried to state earlier, how can you scientifically study something that has no evidence to study?

If it exists in our reality, there must be a way to gather the evidence. If there is absolutely no evidence, then we must conclude the idea/claim is untrue.

That is EXACTLY how we deduce a Designer. There is absolutely evidence for a Designer. The design is all around you. And one must put aside the thought of chance.

1. This thread isn't about Intelligent Design.

2. The "evidence" provided for Intelligent Design is very often misunderstood, misinterpreted, and frequently fabricated to force what they believe to be evidence to fit their conclusions.

True, but the conclusions are the same. It takes a Faith that is not blind to believe in either or both.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Like I tried to state earlier, how can you scientifically study something that has no evidence to study?

If it exists in our reality, there must be a way to gather the evidence. If there is absolutely no evidence, then we must conclude the idea/claim is untrue.

That is EXACTLY how we deduce a Designer. There is absolutely evidence for a Designer. The design is all around you. And one must put aside the thought of chance.

1. This thread isn't about Intelligent Design.

2. The "evidence" provided for Intelligent Design is very often misunderstood, misinterpreted, and frequently fabricated to force what they believe to be evidence to fit their conclusions.

True, but the conclusions are the same. It takes a Faith that is not blind to believe in either or both.

All faith - by definition - is blind. If it is not blind, it would be "earned trust" instead of faith.

I'm not sure I fully understand the scope of your question, but I'll answer as best as I can.

Earned trust in a religious environment is utilized between two or more individuals, and when evidence or data is missing or inaccurate, a phenomenon known as Groupthink is encouraged subconsciously. Those who accept the ideas of the group are then indoctrinated to the rest of the beliefs of that particular group. In this context, earned trust complements the blind faith of the group.

All of this applies to UFO conspiracy theorists as well. The thought processes are exactly the same between the two groups, though as with all groups, some individuals are more extreme than others.

As far as being conditioned to the possibility of (I assume you mean alien visitation) UFOs, I don't think the issue is about being open to the possibility. The issue truly is the approach one uses to arrive at conclusions. For example, I'm completely open to the possibility of alien visitations, but thus far there is no direct evidence that supports the conclusion, therefore I see no reason to believe that we are being visited or ever have been visited. This is very similar to my approach in answering the question "Is there a God?" Until there's directly observable evidence that supports the conclusion, I see no reason to believe such a thing. Arriving at such conclusions does not preclude open-mindedness to future evidence since the process of allowing the data to arrive at a conclusion always allows for the possibility of new data and new conclusions.

I hope that answers your question.

For example, I'm completely open to the possibility of alien visitations, but thus far there is no direct evidence that supports the conclusion,

But would you welcome an alien visitation or be afraid and shun it? Would you look forward to the possibility of it?

Honestly, I'm not completely sure. I'd have to take a wait and see approach if it actually happened. I think the possibility of a peaceful visitation is just as likely as a hostile one. We'd have to find out which type is the one visiting.

For example, I'm completely open to the possibility of alien visitations, but thus far there is no direct evidence that supports the conclusion,

But would you welcome an alien visitation or be afraid and shun it? Would you look forward to the possibility of it?

Honestly, I'm not completely sure. I'd have to take a wait and see approach if it actually happened. I think the possibility of a peaceful visitation is just as likely as a hostile one. We'd have to find out which type is the one visiting.

Once they're here, it's too late to find out, I'm afraid...

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

You cannot prove that something doesn't exist, A single example will, conversely, prove that it does exist.

Proof that the only groups of order 4 are, up to isomorphism, Z_4 and the Klein-4 group; i.e., a proof that no other groups of order 4 exist.

Assume you have a group, G, of order 4. A consequence of LaGrange's Theorem tells us the order of any element divides the order of the group. So, the orders of the elements in group of order 4 are 1, 2 or 4.

If the group has an element 4, it is cyclic and hence isomorphic to Z_4. So, assume that there is no element of order 4.

There must be an identity, say e, and it is unique. Let G = {e, a, b, c}, where e, a, b, and c are distinct. If a^1 = e (i.e., a has order 1), then a = e, making these two elements not distinct. Thus, a does not have order 1. Similarly, neither do b or c. Thus, a, b and c must each have order 2.

a^2 = e ===> a = (a^2) * (a^(-1)) = e * a^(-1) = a^(-1).
Similarly, b = b^(-1).

If a * b = e, then a = a * e = a * (b * b^(-1)) =(a * b) * b^(-1) = e * b^(-1) = b^(-1) = b, a contradiction.
If a * b = a, then b = e * b = (a^(-1) * a) * b = a^(-1) * (a * b) = a^(-1) * a = e, also a contradiction. Similarly, a * b = b yields a = e, another contradiction.

Therefore, a * b = c, and c is order 2.

As the group presentation of the Klein 4 group is <a, b | a^2 = b^2 = (a * b)^2 = e, we see that if G is a group order of 4 with no element of order 4 (is not cyclic/is not isomorphic to Z_4), then G must be the Klein 4 group, proving there are no other groups of order 4 besides these two, up to isomorphism.

So, yes, people, please, keep telling me you cannot prove a negative.

You cannot prove that something doesn't exist, A single example will, conversely, prove that it does exist.

"The strongly regular graphs with λ=0 are triangle free. The seven listed above are the only known ones. Strongly regular graphs with λ=0 and μ=1 are Moore graphs with girth 5. Again the three graphs given above, with parameters (5,2,0,1), (10,3,0,1) and (50,7,0,1), are the only known ones. The only other possible set of parameters yielding a Moore graph is (3250,57,0,1); it is unknown if such a graph exists, and if so, whether or not it is unique." (Wiki)

Wait. Wait! What?!? "The only other possible set of parameters"? How the heck do they know there isn't an srg with parameters (63,17,0,1)? Did they somehow prove something doesn't exist after all?

So, yes, people, please, keep telling me you cannot prove a negative.

OK, People Say: You Cannot Prove A Negative. See. Easy.

I Do As Sarge PhD Say. fO shO

Been waiting fO me to Post Tonight so as I would "BITE" eh? ROTFLMAO

Sweetness.

fO shO

'it' Prove it.

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!