EE THr
Silver Member
The Burden of Proof About LRLs?
Many times, LRL promoters have asserted that anyone who points out the truth, that LRLs don't work, must somehow prove that they don't work.
The problem with that assertion is twofold.
First, those who claim that LRLs work, are the original "claimants." At that point, since they insist on being believed about this highly unlikely claim, they bear the burdon of proof, and no one else.
Second: It is impossible to prove a negative. That is why they try to transfer the burden of proof, away from themselves, and to any challenger of their claims.
The attempted slight of hand transfer of the burden of proof, from themselves to any challengers, violates Logic. But they constantly demand this, thus making themselve obvious hypocrites. That is, they constantly demand "proof" that LRLs don't work, yet continually refuse to try to produce any real proof that LRLs do work.
Then they whine that they are "victims," because nobody will "believe" them!
To further clarify this matter: When a person makes an original claim, the truthfulness of that claim may be challenged. Simply stated, this would be a "claim," and a "challenge." Those who would try to confuse the issue, attempt to place responsibility of proof upon the challenger, rather than upon it's true holder which is the person making the original claim.
Concerning LRLs, the original claim is that LRLs "find stuff." And not only that, but at incredibly long ranges.
When that claim is challenged, the claimant can either provide Real Proof, or submit to not being believed. Their acts of merely trying to invalidate the challenger, or simply continuing to make additional statements of the claim, only constitutes attempts at Social Proof, which is actually no proof at all.
Avoiding tests of proof, by various manipulations, has been observed to be classical tactics of Con Artists and their Shills.
ref: "When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim." See Holder of the Burden.
Please stay on-topic....
Many times, LRL promoters have asserted that anyone who points out the truth, that LRLs don't work, must somehow prove that they don't work.
The problem with that assertion is twofold.
First, those who claim that LRLs work, are the original "claimants." At that point, since they insist on being believed about this highly unlikely claim, they bear the burdon of proof, and no one else.
Second: It is impossible to prove a negative. That is why they try to transfer the burden of proof, away from themselves, and to any challenger of their claims.
The attempted slight of hand transfer of the burden of proof, from themselves to any challengers, violates Logic. But they constantly demand this, thus making themselve obvious hypocrites. That is, they constantly demand "proof" that LRLs don't work, yet continually refuse to try to produce any real proof that LRLs do work.
Then they whine that they are "victims," because nobody will "believe" them!
To further clarify this matter: When a person makes an original claim, the truthfulness of that claim may be challenged. Simply stated, this would be a "claim," and a "challenge." Those who would try to confuse the issue, attempt to place responsibility of proof upon the challenger, rather than upon it's true holder which is the person making the original claim.
Concerning LRLs, the original claim is that LRLs "find stuff." And not only that, but at incredibly long ranges.
When that claim is challenged, the claimant can either provide Real Proof, or submit to not being believed. Their acts of merely trying to invalidate the challenger, or simply continuing to make additional statements of the claim, only constitutes attempts at Social Proof, which is actually no proof at all.
Avoiding tests of proof, by various manipulations, has been observed to be classical tactics of Con Artists and their Shills.
ref: "When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim." See Holder of the Burden.
Please stay on-topic....
