PDA

View Full Version : 3 particle theory



ShadyRaider
2007-Dec-11, 11:24 PM
I recently found this forum while doing research on Ed Leedskalnin and the coral castle. I found a link to a John Depew and Tina Bear thread that has since been cancelled regarding the 3 particle theory. What I read was somewhat shocking, not the theory, but how it was trashed with such a closed minded vengance. The whole while being scoffed at for not providing "facts" while at the same time no "facts" were provided to dis-prove it either. Where are the facts that a electron even exist?? How much of accepted theory is based on this?? That is what it boils down to right?? Being accepted, it is ALL theory the only thing that separates the two is one is accepted the other not. So where does the burden of proof lie?? I would say with the "accepted theory" to dis-prove the other. That thread was alot of closed minded babble and what seemed like fear...of the un-known. Research history of electricity and see how many others were treated the same as these two were for being non-acceptable theorist, Seems like most were proven right in the long run.

Bignose
2007-Dec-11, 11:47 PM
Shady, science doesn't have to entertain every single whim until it's been disproven. It is up to the supporters of a theory to back up their theory, not up to science to tear down every single idea that comes along. Ideas earn respect by bringing facts and evidence to back them up, not just for being ideas.

"My cat just walked up to me and told me that your ideas, ShadyRaider, are completely wrong. It is up to you to prove that my cat did not in fact just walk up to me."

Can you do it? Of course you can't. The onus is on me to prove that, in fact, my cat did indeed talk, because obviously, cats don't normally talk. The burden of proof is on me, the believer of my cat's ability to talk, to prove it to everyone else. It is not up to everyone to prove to me that my cat didn't talk. It is an impossible task.

Same thing with that thread. Same thing with any idea/theory. It is up to the supporters to bring the evidence that their idea is correct. Science does not have to shoot down every whim and fancy of every single person. Bring the evidence that that the 3 particle theory is correct, and people will listen. I guarantee it. But, if you don't bring any evidence, people will not listen. Sorry.

Science is indeed replete with examples of people whose ideas were scoffed at, and then proven right. But, history does not remember the many, many, many more that were scoffed at because they were wrong. Invoking past examples never proves a point about situations at hand. This is an example of a logical fallacy. You have to bring evidence germane to the topic at hand, you can't just tell everyone how some prior researchers were proven right in the end. Prove the correctness of the theory at hand, and then the idea will be accepted. It really is as simple as that.

Van Rijn
2007-Dec-11, 11:49 PM
That is what it boils down to right?? Being accepted, it is ALL theory the only thing that separates the two is one is accepted the other not.


It helps if there actually is a theory, with quantitative predictions that have been tested, repeatedly.



So where does the burden of proof lie?? I would say with the "accepted theory" to dis-prove the other.


I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do disprove my claim?

The burden of proof lies with those making the claim.



That thread was alot of closed minded babble and what seemed like fear...of the un-known.


Funny, I remember numerous questions that were never answered by the promoter, and only extremely vague ideas presented by the promotor.