From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Re: Crop Circles?
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 22:52:43 GMT

In article <3359@bcstec.ca.boeing.com>, kuryakin@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Rick Pavek) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.024610.18427@random.ccs.northeastern.edu>rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical) writes:
>>                                       Either the challenge is inherently
>>unanswerable (rhetorical), or it does in fact have a solution.  Which is it?
>>
>Indeed, as above, the point is simply that you [skeptics] cannot prove the
>absolute statement that man and his tools did create all of the crop
>circles.  Fair is fair.  I cannot provide an alien in a spaceship...
>or plasma toroids, or any other evidence that says man didn't create all
>of the circles.  We, sir, are at an impasse.  

No, we are not.  Skeptics can't prove what you want them to prove because it
is PRINCIPALLY IMPOSSIBLE, and you just can't prove what you want to prove,
without such a fundamental reason.  You need to know what a null hypothesis is.
Look at, for example, the neutrino mass.  Is it zero, or is it not?
It is sure *close to* zero, so close that we can't tell the difference.
Suppose it is zero, then we will never know it is, because though we can
improve the measurement methods, we can never make them so good that the
inaccuracy goes to zero.  Thus the hypothesis that it is zero is NOT PROVEABLE
IN PRINCIPLE, and the opposite hypothesis is NOT FALSIFIABLE.  Thus the
physicists say, "We don't know what is right, but it's probably zero.  Perhaps
that's wrong, but the burden of evidence is on the "non-zero" side, because
the "zero" side cannot be proven in principle.  So we accept the null hypo-
thesis until it is disproven.  Zero is default."  Anybody who says things like
"Prove the null hypothesis" only gets a strange look.

We have the same situation here.  The null hypothesis is "No crop circles are
made by means other than men."  This is default, and it is assumed true until
the opposite is proven.  To demand that one prove the null hypothesis is
SILLY.

Another null hypothesis is "No crop circles are made by men."  This is also
not proveable.  One will never be able to prove men are uncapable of making
crop circles.  Therefore nobody has asked you to prove that.  The burden of
proof is indeed on the other side.  It is necessary to prove that man CAN
make crop circles.  You demanded that proof too, and *this* demand is sensible
from a logical standpoint.  Bravo.  Go on like that.  (that sounds more
patronizing than it should)

I'm not arguing here that you have to accept each null hypothesis.  I only
say it's extremely poor logic to demand proof before you believe in a null
hypothesis, while it is only natural to demand proof before you disbelieve a
null hypothesis.  I don't know much about crop circles but I know about logic.
And your logic is bad.

You can say "Prove that humans can make crop circles"
You can say "Prove that humans can make this special sort of crop circles with
  bent stalks"
You can say "Prove that humans can make this special sort of crop circles with
  burns, radioactivity, bent stalks, and a cloud continously hovering over it"
But you can't say "Prove that humans made all crop circles"

In another posting you write:
>But my demand for proof was no less fair than yours...
which is of course wrong (see above).

In yet another you write:
>Well, it seems that the predictable has happened.  The skeptics are
>annoyed and the comments that actually contained information were
>ignored (true, they weren't mine...).

Skeptics will jump on those things which are easiest to jump on.  Your logic
was easier to dismember than actual information, which would need other
information...

-- 
--------------thomas kettenring, 2 dan, kaiserslautern, germany---------------
Definition:  Idiot-proof  -  you are idiot-proof when you NEVER flame anybody.
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors