UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Jan > Jan 9

Re: 25 Rules of Disinformation

From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 20:23:07 +0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 14:28:35 -0500
Subject: Re: 25 Rules of Disinformation


>From: Gary Alevy <galevy@pipeline.com>
>Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 18:32:44 -0500
>Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 17:02:01 -0500
>Subject: Re: 25 Rules of Disinformation

Previously, gary offered this heap:

>>-- What are the real issues in the dispute which broke out last
>>month over Dr. Hynek? This real issues revolve around the fact
>>that there is AMPLE evidence, evidence tantamount to proof, FOR
>>ME, that Dr. Hynek was working both sides of the street in his
>>later career as Godfather of ufology. What is proof? It is the
>>evidence that convinces YOU. That is, there is no absolute
>>proof available in this area, short of the individual at issue
>>owning up in public

<snip>

Gary,

I really don't know where to begin. My head is still swimming
from such a convoluted self justification for your position
regarding Hynek.

"Evidence tantamount to proof" is not proof.

Evidence is evidence and proof is proof. Sometimes they are the
same. Sometimes they are not. It all depends on the validity of
the argument that supports the evidence and vice versa.

For instance, if a gun is found at a murder scene with my
fingerprints on it and the victim was killed by that gun, then
an argument could be made that I killed the victim. However, as
logical as this argument would be, and as damning as the
evidence would seem, it is not PROOF that I fired the gun at the
victim; only that the gun that was used has my finger prints on
it.

In fact, the only proof that exists in this increminating
scenario is that I, at one time, held the gun in my hand. It
doesn't even prove that I fired it, even once.

Therefore the argument, though logical, is not valid even though
the evidence is clear and uncontested. By extension, the
evidence could not be considered proof.

Using your logic, if the jury is convinced by the argument, then
the evidence is therefore proof. Not so (though I might go to
jail anyway). As we have seen by the lastest Stephens saga, some
people were convinced by his arguments, others were not. Does
that mean that the unconvinced are ignoring obvious proof? Of
course not. The acceptance of an argument does not validate
"evidence" and elevate it to "proof". Nor does it give validity
to other arguments that might come up as a result of this
acceptance.

I will agree with you on one statement:

>>That is, there is no absolute
>>proof available in this area, short of the individual at issue
>>owning up in public

Finally, Gary gets it right...

Later,

Roger Evans


[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com