42
   

Snowdon is a dummy

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jan, 2014 02:21 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Re: Proof v Evidence, definitions.

You,
Quote:
Quote:
They are not interchangeable.


Proof/Evidence: You are stupid.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jan, 2014 02:39 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Re: Proof v Evidence, definitions.

You,
Quote:
Quote:
They are not interchangeable.


Proof/Evidence: You are stupid.


I understand you think I am stupid...I am not. But you are free to think I am.

In any case, in a discussion about the existence or non-existence of a GOD...I said that I would not ask for proof (because I did not think it was available)...that I would only ask for EVIDENCE. Some atheists cite "evidence" that there are no gods; some theists cite "evidence" that there is a GOD.

In a subsequent post, I asked: “What evidence do you see that gods exist? What evidence do you see that gods do not exist? “

I said that I only ask for “evidence”…and I do not ask for “proof.”

In my question I asked for “evidence”…I did not ask for “proof.”

But you asserted that there was a contradiction.

What is the contradiction?

I can even give you some help with this, ci: THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION IN WHAT I WROTE.

So…what is the contradiction, ci?
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Tue 7 Jan, 2014 03:06 pm
Two longer reports about "whistleblowing" years ago ...

After 43 years, activists admit theft at FBI office that exposed domestic spying

Democracy Needs Whistleblowers. That's Why I Broke into the FBI in 1971
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jan, 2014 03:39 pm
@Frank Apisa,
The two words have the same meaning - in the English language.

Proof = Evidence, and Evidence = Proof. That's how most dictionaries define these two words.

You evidently don't care about dictionary definitions, since you "believe" your interpretations are better! LOL
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jan, 2014 03:48 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

The two words have the same meaning - in the English language.

Proof = Evidence, and Evidence = Proof. That's how most dictionaries define these two words.

You evidently don't care about dictionary definitions, since you "believe" your interpretations are better! LOL




I understand you can find dictionaries that call evidence and proof synonyms, ci. And often they are used interchangeably. But I specifically differentiated between them…which makes all the differnce.

Here are a few sites on the Internet talking about the differences between “evidence” and “proof.”


http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?EvidenceVersusProof


http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090126133939AAVDs5m


This next one is actually titled: “Evidence does not prove Arafat poisoning: Russian report”

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/08/us-palestinians-arafat-russians-idUSBRE9A70EK20131108

Here is a quotation from the following article: “The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. “

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

Here is one discussing the Shroud of Turin: “EVIDENCE IS NOT PROOF: A RESPONSE TO PROF TIMOTHY JULL”
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/oxley.pdf

Stop the nonsense, ci.

I was very specific that I would not ask for PROOF...and I didn't.

I said I would ask for EVIDENCE...and I did.

So...what is the contradiction?


Edit: Not sure what happened with that size thing.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jan, 2014 03:57 pm
@Frank Apisa,
On this thread, I rarely agree with Frank. Here I do.

There's a good example, I've learnt when working with the police:
you need to find a lot of (different) evidence to finally have the proof.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jan, 2014 04:05 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

On this thread, I rarely agree with Frank. Here I do.

There's a good example, I've learnt when working with the police:
you need to find a lot of (different) evidence to finally have the proof.


Thank you, Walter.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jan, 2014 04:13 pm
Here's something else I just came across. It is from an article in the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia:

Proof is the establishment of a disputed or controverted matter by lawful means or arguments.Proof is the result of evidence; evidence is the medium of proof. There is no proof without evidence, but there may be evidence without proof.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12454c.htm

That actually was my point earlier. I never ask for "proof" from a theist or a strong atheist if they are asserting "there is a GOD"or "there are no gods."

I simply do not think there is such proof...but I am certainly willing to listen to and consider anything either side considers "evidence."

ci, I carefully differentiated between the two in my comments...and I was completely consistent. I understand your feelings that I have been contradicting myself on this, but there was no contradiction.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Tue 7 Jan, 2014 04:24 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Frank, Here again are your statements (and they are not about math which usually defines the difference between proof and evidence).
You are asking a philosophical question that cannot be answered.
Quote:
Your posts,
Quote:
13JAN2012: I would NEVER ask for "proof" that gods exist or that gods do not exist. I am convinced such proof does not exist and such a request would be unfair and fruitless. I would assume the "assertion" was actually a "guess"...and only ask for the evidence upon which the guess that “gods exist” or “gods do not exist” is based…and then comment on that evidence.

13JAN2012:What evidence do you see that gods exist?
What evidence do you see that gods do not exist
?


In this instance, "what proof do you see that gods exist?" and "what evidence do you see that gods exist?" is the same. On this topic, proof and evidence has the same meaning.
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Tue 7 Jan, 2014 06:11 pm
Suggest strongly that you either or disable the cam in the computer bios or placed a tape over the lens when not using it.

The federal government is the greatest danger to our freedoms less alone our privacy that exist in this world.


Quote:

http://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/view/36045/fbi-can-activate-webcams-remotely-without-the-light-coming-on/

FBI Can Activate Webcams Remotely Without the Light Coming On
09 December 2013

Whether hackers are able to remotely switch on victims' webcams without the camera light giving the game away has been the subject of some debate. Now we learn that not only can it be done, it is done by the FBI.

When Miss Teen USA announced she had been blackmailed over nude photos taken via her webcam, she said, "I wasn't aware that somebody was watching me [on my webcam]. The [camera] light didn't even go on, so I had no idea."

Is that possible, asked Naked Security. "Can webcams be rigged so as to record without the light coming on?" Chester Wisniewski, senior security advisor at Sophos, responded, "Some laptops allow you to turn the light on and off in software, others only work physically. I think it is certainly possible, if unlikely."

Now we learn, in a report published by The Washington Post, it is not only possible, it is done by the FBI. Details came to light in a Post article on court documents seeking – and gaining – authority to hack a suspect's personal computer and place spyware on it. "The FBI’s elite hacker team," reports the Post, "designed a piece of malicious software that was to be delivered secretly when Mo [the suspect] signed on to his Yahoo e-mail account, from any computer anywhere in the world, according to the documents." The method used is a classic spear-phishing attack. In this particular incident, the attack worked, but the malware failed.

However, the purpose was to obtain any information possible to tie Mo into bomb threats made shortly after 12 people were shot in a movie theater in Denver in July 2012. "The most powerful FBI surveillance software can covertly download files, photographs and stored e-mails, or even gather real-time images by activating cameras connected to computers, say court documents and people familiar with this technology", continues the Post.

According to Marcus Thomas, a former assistant director of the FBI’s Operational Technology Division in Quantico, and now on the advisory board of Subsentio, "The FBI has been able to covertly activate a computer’s camera — without triggering the light that lets users know it is recording — for several years, and has used that technique mainly in terrorism cases or the most serious criminal investigations." It is apparently used sparingly to avoid the practice becoming common knowledge through the court applications for authority.

That authority is not automatically granted. One application noted by the Post and not involving Mo – which included the plan to activate the suspect's webcam – "was rejected by a federal magistrate in Houston, who ruled that it was 'extremely intrusive' and could violate the Fourth Amendment."

Nevertheless, it raises the possibility that this type of surveillance has been used by the FBI, and possibly other government agencies, without general public knowledge. "We have transitioned into a world where law enforcement is hacking into people’s computers, and we have never had public debate,” said Christopher Soghoian, principal technologist for the American Civil Liberties Union. "Judges are having to make up these powers as they go along."

French news site Numerama gives it wider relevance: "Webcam Kinect will probably no longer be seen in the same way as formerly by many players..."

This article is featured in:
Internet and Network Security • Malware and Hardware Security


Comment on this article

You must be registered and logged in to leave a comment about this article.

http://twitter.com/InfosecurityMaghttp://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=2035794&trk=myg_ugrp_ovrhttp://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Infosecurity-Magazine/210560332330063
Members' Login
Already registered? Click the button below to login.

Not a member?
Terms & Conditions | Privacy | Website
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jan, 2014 06:43 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Frank, Here again are your statements (and they are not about math which usually defines the difference between proof and evidence).
You are asking a philosophical question that cannot be answered.
Quote:
Your posts,
Quote:
13JAN2012: I would NEVER ask for "proof" that gods exist or that gods do not exist. I am convinced such proof does not exist and such a request would be unfair and fruitless. I would assume the "assertion" was actually a "guess"...and only ask for the evidence upon which the guess that “gods exist” or “gods do not exist” is based…and then comment on that evidence.

13JAN2012:What evidence do you see that gods exist?
What evidence do you see that gods do not exist
?


In this instance, "what proof do you see that gods exist?" and "what evidence do you see that gods exist?" is the same. On this topic, proof and evidence has the same meaning.


I am sorry, ci...but you are not correct.

Theists often assert evidence of the existence of god...but there are no proofs.

Strong atheists often assert evidence of no gods...often the spurious "theists can produce no gods"...but there are no proofs.

In any case...I CLEARLY differentiated between the two...STATING CLEARLY that I (personally) never ask for "proof" of the existence or non-existence of gods...and I even give the reason why I never do that. I then STATED CLEARLY that I (personally) sometimes ask for "evidence" from either atheists or theists making assertions of that kind.

I then VERY, VERY CLEARLY asked for "evidence."

That is completely consistent.

There is NO inconsistency or contradiction there.

Since you are insisting there is...I ask again:

What inconsistency do you see?
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Wed 8 Jan, 2014 08:07 am
The US-ambassador has met politicians at Bavarian conservative party's conference ...

http://i1334.photobucket.com/albums/w641/Walter_Hinteler/a_zps586184c8.jpg
Bavarian PM Seehofer is on the left, the one with the Bavarian-style jacket is John B. Emerson, US-Ambassador to the Federal Republic of Germany

... and said there during a press-conference
- that the spying on Merkel's phone was only done to keep US and German citizens safe. But the US had stopped it now. [We and you are unsafe!!!]
- that the US didn't spy on German companies. That would be impossible, because - that's his example - if they spied on Airbus (EADS), the US-government wouldn't know what data to give whom, Lockheed or Boeing. (That's very convincing Wink )
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Wed 8 Jan, 2014 10:58 am
Quote:
The leaders of the US intelligence agencies were holding talks at the White House on Wednesday as US president Barack Obama neared a decision on curbing the National Security Agency’s controversial bulk surveillance powers.

Obama was meeting the leadership of the US spy agencies and his privacy and civil liberties oversight board, to be followed on Thursday by additional meetings with key congressional leaders.

Legislators critical of the NSA’s bulk domestic phone records collection, such as senators Ron Wyden and Mark Udall and congressman James Sensenbrenner, were expected to attend.

According to the White House, Obama has yet to decide which NSA and FBI authorities to restrict and which to ratify. An announcement could come as early as next week, and the White House has said it will occur before the state of the union address on 28 January.
Source and full report
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jan, 2014 11:32 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank, One last time; there is no proof or evidence of any god. They are 'GUESSES.' The proof/evidence is that humans have created gods since we were able to communicate. That's the only proof/evidence we humans have concerning gods.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jan, 2014 11:51 am
@cicerone imposter,
Philosophy on proving god.
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/

Quote:
prove
pro͞ov/Submit
verb
1.
demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.
"the concept is difficult to prove"
synonyms: show (to be true), demonstrate (the truth of), show beyond doubt, manifest, produce proof/evidence;


Quote:
proof
pro͞of/Submit
noun
1.
evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
"you will be asked to give proof of your identity"
synonyms: evidence, verification, corroboration, authentication, confirmation, certification, documentation, validation, attestation, substantiation More


Quote:
ev·i·dence
ˈevədəns/Submit
noun
1.
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.


Now, go back to the URL I provided above, and please identify where I am wrong.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Wed 8 Jan, 2014 12:34 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Frank, One last time; there is no proof or evidence of any god. They are 'GUESSES.' The proof/evidence is that humans have created gods since we were able to communicate. That's the only proof/evidence we humans have concerning gods.


I have no idea of what your point is here, ci.

I plainly said that I do not ask for proofs...that I only ask for evidence.

I very specifically did NOT ask for proofs...and I did ask for evidence.

You are saying that there is a contradiction there.

I am saying there is no contradiction.

I have no idea of why you brought this into a discussion of Edward Snowden in the first place...but since you did, we ought at least get it right.

There is no contradiction.

Why not just acknowledge that and move on to something else?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jan, 2014 12:56 pm
@Frank Apisa,
You're locked into "your" definition for these words that doesn't make any sense when discussing philosophy. You have a stubbornness problem as well as being unable to accept facts presented by several sources about word definitions.

You live in a strange world where you believe your definitions take precedence over philosophy forums and most dictionaries.

Fine; live in your cloister of ignorance!

Quote:
clois·ter
ˈkloistər/Submit
noun

verb: cloister; 3rd person present: cloisters; past tense: cloistered; past participle: cloistered; gerund or present participle: cloistering
1.
seclude or shut up in or as if in a convent or monastery.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jan, 2014 01:17 pm
From propublica.org
Quote:
The government isn't allowed to wiretap American citizens without a warrant from a judge. But there are plenty of legal ways for law enforcement, from the local sheriff to the FBI to the Internal Revenue Service, to snoop on the digital trails you create every day. Authorities can often obtain your emails and texts by going to Google or AT&T with a simple subpoena that doesn’t require showing probable cause of a crime. And recent revelations about classified National Security Agency surveillance programs show that the government is regularly sweeping up data on Americans’ telephone calls and has the capability to access emails, files, online chats and other data — all under secret oversight by a special federal court.

The breadth of and justification for the surveillance are the subjects of ongoing debate in Washington. President Obama and others have defended the programs as necessary to identify terrorists and stop attacks before they happen, but privacy advocates and several U.S. lawmakers have questioned them.


For what the government can get and the legal framework behind its power, see the full report (linked above)
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Wed 8 Jan, 2014 05:23 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

You're locked into "your" definition for these words that doesn't make any sense when discussing philosophy. You have a stubbornness problem as well as being unable to accept facts presented by several sources about word definitions.

You live in a strange world where you believe your definitions take precedence over philosophy forums and most dictionaries.

Fine; live in your cloister of ignorance!

Quote:
clois·ter
ˈkloistər/Submit
noun

verb: cloister; 3rd person present: cloisters; past tense: cloistered; past participle: cloistered; gerund or present participle: cloistering
1.
seclude or shut up in or as if in a convent or monastery.



Well, you are the one locked into definitions, ci. I have given you links to several positions that indicate that "proof" and "evidence" are not necessarily interchangeable.

And in the discussion I was having that you quoted...the issue was the existence of gods.

There apparently is no proof for the existence of gods...and no proof that gods do not exist.

But, despite what you want to think, evidence in both directions. Both camps...and philosophers throughout history...have discussed that "evidence."

I clearly differentiated between the two...and as I said, I never asked for proof...I did ask for evidence.

You simply are being too bull-headed to acknowledge that there was no contradiction in what I wrote.

If it makes you happy to be that stubborn and unwilling to acknowledge the obvious...and if it makes you happy to consider me ignorant and stupid...

...fine with me. Whatever makes your life worth living, ci.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jan, 2014 05:32 pm
@Frank Apisa,
I'm not locked into anything; just providing what's out there in web-land's dictionaries - the definition of words that are universally accepted by most people. Can't help it if you want to use your own definitions; that's your problem!

Differentiate all you want, Frank. Not my problem! In my world, dictionary = word definitions.

BTW, what you deem "obvious" is a misnomer on your part.

Quote:
ev·i·dence
ˈevədəns/Submit
noun
1.
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Snowdon is a dummy
  3. » Page 231
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 01/20/2021 at 11:22:09