THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

I am not a slandering bigot, I am a bringer of wisdom and truth.

A Merry Christmas and a Happy Hanukkah to all my readers

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

You posted falsies?
Where?
Can I see them?

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Cicerone imposter you are wrong. Scientists, engineers, philosophers, and doctors, to name only a few, prove negatives regularly.

A few simple examples:

Oh brother... Let's see what non-science you've got in store today...

ican711nm wrote:

1. Scientists: The earth is not the center of our solar system.

For a theory to be a theory, it must be falsifiable. The previous theory of the earth being the center of the universe defined how the theory was testable in it's claim. The point in science is that evidence is observed and then an explanation is derived based on that evidence. When a theory is wrong, it almost ALWAYS comes from a false premise that the theory was based on.

Let us truly understand what actually took place. Heliocentricity came next and then the next and next and next iteration of the model of the universe's physical dimensions. Each new theory comes along and it's conclusion is based on the same observable universe only perhaps more refined more precise observations. The combined body is then reprocessed into a new solution. That new solution hopefully has a smaller margin or error. The next step is to develop better more precise tools and rinse repeat. Eventually, your theory begins to converge.

The important part is that you understand that the abandonment of the old theory comes not from a proof of a negative, but by the proof of a false positive. I.e. - the old solution does not account for new data. There is a significant difference.

ican711nm wrote:

2. Engineers: That steel beam will not support that load..

"A beam XY will not support a load W" is an engineering problem that exists in the real world. The question itself allows the engineer to make some crucial assumptions.

1) That the beam exists in the same observable universe as the Engineer.
2) That all matter in this universe is subjected to the same rules.

This example of yours reminds me of my Physics professor. He would tell any student trying to squeeze points out of him for a wrong answer that "nature always wins." The engineer may calculate that the beam will or will not break, a test by putting a load on the beam may validate or invalidate his calculations. If the engineer says the beam will not break and it does, the beam didn't do anything "wrong," it only did exactly as the forces exerted on it made it react.

What you need to understand about your notion is that it, despite the wording is not the theory, but the test. Tests are proven right or wrong, they only provide data.

ican711nm wrote:

3. Philosophers: Truth is not falsity.

You are using sentence syntax to disguise this as a proof of a negative. The statement that A !=B; is actually a statement that are separate things.

You can use language as you wish, but be real...

"not different" = "same"
"not apart" = "together"

True scientific statements are testable and must be proved, not disproved. That's why they are stated correctly in the positive.

ican711nm wrote:

4. Doctors: My patient's heart is not pumping.

The above is an observation, not a theory.

You cannot disprove a negative, only prove a positive. We do not start with default truth. If you make a theory, the onus is you to prove it, not your opposition to disprove it.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Diest, of course one can prove a negative proposition is true or false. One does that by proving that the inverse of that negative proposition is true or false. Since both the negative proposition and its inverse cannot both be true, when one proves the inverse proposition of a negative proposition is true, one can logically conclude that the negative proposition is false.

TO BE PROVEN: One can prove a negative proposition is false by proving the inverse of that proposition is true.

Likewise, one can prove a postive proposition is false by proving the inverse of that proposition is true.

A is not true if NOT A is true.
Not A is not true if A is true.

Let A = Proposition 1: The speed of light between its transmitter and its receiver is is dependent on the relative speed of its transmitter and its receiver.

Let B = Proposition 2: The speed of light between its transmitter and its receiver is not dependent on the relative speed of its transmitter and its receiver.

B = NOT A
A = NOT B

B has been proven true by Einstein et al..
Therefore, A is not true.

B = The speed of light is constant regardless of the speed of the transmitter and its receiver.

One can prove not A is false by proving A is true.

QED: One can prove a negative proposition is false by proving the inverse of that proposition is true.

I have just proven that one can prove a negative proposition is true or false by proving the inverse of that proposition is, respectively, false or true.

1 Reply

Well, it seems there is one place the Iraqis groups can come to a political accord.

Quote:

After disastrously invading and occupying Iraq, one of the justifications President Bush frequently offered for sustaining the enormous U.S. costs in lives and resources was that we were developing a “key ally” in the Middle East:

Together we’ll help Iraq become a strong democracy that protects the rights of its people and is a key ally in the war on terror. [9/22/05]

Our mission in Iraq is clear. … We’re helping Iraqis build a free nation that is an ally in the war on terror. We’re advancing freedom in the broader Middle East. [6/28/05]

Freedom will prevail in Iraq; freedom will prevail in the Middle East; and as the hope of freedom spreads to nations that have not known it, these countries will become allies in the cause of peace. [3/20/06]

The Wonk Room’s Matt Duss notes that " in a central test of the U.S. alliance with Iraq " our “key ally” is instead more eager to disassociate itself completely from the United States:

Just as they did during Israel’s 2006 war against Hezbollah, Iraq’s leaders are now showing where their true sympathies lie. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s Da’wa Party “issued a statement condemning the attacks and calling on Islamic countries to cut relations with Israel and end all ’secret and public talks’ with it.”

Khalid Hussain of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) told Gulf News “We have obligations towards Palestine and all Iraqi people are in solidarity with the people in Palestine, and we will support the people in Gaza.” […]

“Iraqi resistance groups have to retaliate against the Israeli aggression on Gaza by escalating their operations against the US military in Iraq since the US position is in favour of this aggression, firstly, and secondly because the United States and Israel are both enemies of the Arabs,” Omar Al Kubaisi, an activist of the Sunni Muslim Clerics Association.

Shia cleric Grand Ayatollah Sistani has also condemned the Gaza strikes. Duss concludes, “Looking on the bright side, if one can call it that, as with opposition to the U.S. occupation, Gaza is an issue on which Iraqis have achieved rare political consensus.”

links at the source

0 Replies

Iraq gov't gets control of Green Zone, US troops

By JIM HEINTZ, Associated Press Writer Jim Heintz, Associated Press Writer " 17 mins ago

BAGHDAD " The U.S. formally transferred control of the Green Zone to Iraqi authorities Thursday in a pair of ceremonies that also handed back Saddam Hussein's former palace. Iraq's prime minister said he will propose making Jan. 1 a holiday marking the restoration of sovereignty.

Under the new security agreement between Washington and Baghdad to replace a U.N. mandate for foreign troops in Iraq, the Iraqi government also now has control of American troops' actions and of the country's airspace.

The moves came amid a dramatic fall in violence over the past year. However, insurgents still stage daily attacks and could try to expand the fight now that U.S. troops cannot take unilateral action.

. . .

But the Americans have moved out of the Republican Palace, the sprawling former headquarters of Saddam's regime that they took over shortly after the 2003 invasion. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki formerly took control of the building Thursday and exulted over the security pact under which U.S. troops are to leave the country by 2012.

"A year ago, the mere thought of forces withdrawing from Iraq was considered a dream," al-Maliki told reporters afterward. "The dream that no one had the right to think about became true."

He called for making Jan. 1 a national holiday called "Sovereignty Day." Iraq already officially observes New Year's Day as a holiday.

more. . .

0 Replies

New US embassy now open in Baghdad

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7811088.stm

4000 is a lot of staff

1 Reply

@McTag,

400 is a lot of staff.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Even 40 is a lot of staff.

0 Replies

The embassy, and its people, will be a standout target for our enemies.

The 4,000 must be wondering how they qualified, as diplomats, to be sent to a war zone. Will they be issued weapons?

0 Replies

I gather that the embassy will serve as a military HQ as well.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

I gather that too.

1 Reply

@McTag,

It'll be a "love boat embassy". Guaranteed. On big money.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Guaranteed, it's a "love boat embassy" that will not "float" on the big money that it will consume.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7811088.stm
New US embassy opens in Baghdad

US Ambassador Ryan Crocker: 'The security transition is proceeding very well'
The new US embassy in Baghdad has been opened, with a dedication ceremony attended by the Iraqi president.

The compound is one of the biggest and most expensive embassies the US has ever built, and was opened amid heavy security in the Iraqi capital.

On 1 January the US officially handed over responsibility for security in the fortified Green Zone to Iraqi forces.

The US also gave back Saddam Hussein's palace there, which had been their headquarters in the city.

The new complex where about 1,200 staff will live and work has been built with security very much in mind, says the BBC's Caroline Wyatt in Baghdad.

The opening ceremony was led by Ambassador Ryan Crocker and attended by US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte and Iraqi President Jalal Talabani.

Mr Talabani thanked the US for helping to create a democratic Iraq "which will serve as a model for other peoples of the eastern world", Reuters news agency reported.

US spokeswoman Susan Ziadeh said the new embassy reflected a broadening of relations between the US and Iraq as the security situation improved.

"Its scale reflects the importance of the US-Iraq bilateral relationship," she said. "It reflects a more normal situation."

'Absolute priority'

The new year has opened with bloodshed in Iraq.

Several bombs exploded in Baghdad on Monday, killing at least three people and wounding many others.

The worst of 2009 so far, a suicide bombing on pilgrims gathering at one of the main Shia shrines in Baghdad killed up to 40 people last week. I am confident we will continue to manage this in a careful, organised fashion that has the Iraqis firmly in charge but in charge of a very firm security situation

Ryan Crocker
US Ambassador to Iraq

On Sunday, Ambassador Crocker strongly condemned the suicide bombing near the Imam Moussa al-Kadhim shrine, as well as a suicide attack on 2 January - the second against a meeting of Sunni and Shia tribal leaders just south of the city.

Mr Crocker said the recent attacks showed that despite great progress on security, al-Qaeda in Iraq remained a lethal and dangerous threat.

However, he said he was confident about Iraqi forces' abilities, as they take over wider responsibility for security in the country.

"They are as determined as we are that this necessary transition does not open up any vulnerabilities and that is an absolute priority for both of us," said Mr Crocker.

"So I am confident we will continue to manage this in a careful, organised fashion that has the Iraqis firmly in charge but in charge of a very firm security situation."

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Parkinson's Law
Prof. Cyril Northcote Parkinson

‘WORK EXPANDS SO AS TO FILL THE TIME AVAILABLE FOR ITS COMPLETION’

General recognition of this fact is shown in the proverbial phrase 'It is the busiest man who has time to spare.' Thus, an elderly lady of leisure can spend the entire day in writing and dispatching a postcard to her niece at Bognor Regis. An hour will be spent finding the postcard, another in hunting for spectacles, half an hour in a search for the address, an hour and a quarter in composition, and twenty minutes in deciding whether or not to take an umbrella when going to the pillar box in the next street. The total effort that would occupy a busy man for three minutes all told may in this fashion leave another person prostrate after a day of doubt, anxiety, and toil.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. There's the inverse for you ican. Only the enemy of my enemy may not actually be my friend.

You're playing syntax games, nothing else. You can't disprove a negative. You prove a positive. Your statements RE: the speed of light are still positive statements.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Scientist, engineers, physicians, lawyers, mechanics, aviators, and children prove negatives often. They most often do that by proving the inverse of a negative is false.

For example:
(1) The earth is not the center of the solar system.
(2) The sun and not the earth is the center of the solar system.

By proving (2), scientists disproved (1).

Another Example:
(1) The universe is not 6 earth days old.
(2) The universe is more than 10 billion earth years old.

By proving (2), scientists disproved (1).

(1) God does not exist.
(2) God does exist.

Neither (1) or (2) have been proven either true or false by scientists.

The best scientists can do is show that (1) or (2) is more probably true than false.

I'm an engineer/business administrator/aviator. I have computed the odds that humans did evolve by chance from their common ancester with the mouse to be less than 1/(10^1,000,000), or one chance in one followed by more than one-million zeros. However, that merely shows there is only a slight chance that humans did evolve by chance, but a big chance they evolved by design and not by chance.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Scientist, engineers, physicians, lawyers, mechanics, aviators, and children prove negatives often. They most often do that by proving the inverse of a negative is false.

You're playing syntax games nothing more.

ican711nm wrote:

For example:
(1) The earth is not the center of the solar system.
(2) The sun and not the earth is the center of the solar system.

By proving (2), scientists disproved (1).

This didn't prove that the earth wasn't the center of the solar system, it proved that the sun was. Properly written...

(1) The Sun is the center of the solar system
(2) The Earth is the center of the solar system

Only one answer can exist, and the truth does not come from disproving but proving.

ican711nm wrote:

Another Example:
(1) The universe is not 6 earth days old.
(2) The universe is more than 10 billion earth years old.

By proving (2), scientists disproved (1).

But (1) didn't have to be disproved. No such thing as default truth. Properly written the two competing theories would state...

(1) The universe was created over 6 earth days
(2) The universe came into existence in a single event and formed over billions of years.

there is no need to disprove (1) because unless (1) can offer objective evidence in support it cannot be accepted as sound or even viable.

ican711nm wrote:

(1) God does not exist.
(2) God does exist.

Neither (1) or (2) have been proven either true or false by scientists.

The best scientists can do is show that (1) or (2) is more probably true than false.

This a false stalemate. This is not the difference between eating an apple or an orange (where the situation demands that ultimately one is to be eaten). There is no need to disprove that a god exists.

We don't start in a universe where everything exists and then we slowly cross off the things that don't exist. That world is one where ANYTHING could exist in spite of any rationality.

It does not exist until proven. This isn't a stalemate. Those who want to believe in an almighty god lose until they can prove it. If it is real, they should have no problem... but they don't and they can't.

ican711nm wrote:

I'm an engineer/business administrator/aviator. I have computed the odds that humans did evolve by chance from their common ancester with the mouse to be less than 1/(10^1,000,000), or one chance in one followed by more than one-million zeros. However, that merely shows there is only a slight chance that humans did evolve by chance, but a big chance they evolved by design and not by chance.

Chance is not a force that governs. This is logical fallacy. The reason to believe in a natural universe are not because of the likelihood of there being a god or no god, but because there is evidence that is congruent with that theory everywhere that is observable to all, theories which are testable and can produce new area of investigation.

I'm an engineer too. I can make a machine that will flip a coin and make it land heads up every time. The probability of head every time (or even 100 times) is even less than your number, but probability does NOT govern the natural world. Before you call me a liar, my physics professor already made it device. It's been running for some 10 years. Same coin. Heads every time. he's in the ten thousands now.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

probability does NOT govern the natural world.

Make up your mind. Did human evolution occur by chance or by design?

If by chance, then probability did govern human evolution.

If by design, then will did govern human evolution.

There does not exist conclusive evidence that God (i.e., a will of the universe) exists.

There does not exist conclusive evidence that God (i.e., a will of the universe) does not exist.

There does exist evidence that God (i.e., a will of the universe) probably exists.

There does exist evidence that God probably does not exist.

It's fair to say that both the belief God exists and the belief God does not exist are based on faith. In other words both theism and atheism are religions.

By the way, how one proves a negative does not determine whether or not one can prove a negative. Too many people assert negatives apparently thinking that they are excused from providing evidence that supports their negative assertions. That of course is nonsense. Negatives are proven and disproven daily. That is negatives, depending on their content are provable or disprovable, regardless what some professor alleges.

The assertion that one cannot prove a negative, can be proven by providing evidence that that no negative assertion can be proven true. However, if one does prove that particular negative assertion is true, then one has proven a negative.

You claim a negative cannot be proven true. If you cannot prove this one negative assertion is true, then its truth is at best uncertain.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know