My pareidolia knows no bounds.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Marsevidence01</i>
<br /> yes, it could be art most certainly and there is ample evidence to suggest this IS the case.
Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Again it <b>could be </b> pareidolia, and there is myriad evidence to suggest this IS the case.

rd

<b>[Marsevidence01] "... my quest is to try to ascertain IF these anomalies were created in the Martian past, or if they are a result of an ongoing process.</b>

... my quest is to try to ascertain IF these anomalies were created in the Martian past <u>(by some natural process)</u>, or if they are a result of an ongoing <u>(natural)</u> process

When you do not specify what you actually mean, others are free to read between the lines.

More ice ...

NOTE - others will read between the lines anyway. Being non-specific just makes it a lot easier.

Posted - 17 Oct 2014 : 15:06:44 Show Profile Email Poster Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Marsevidence01

The word proof should be so defined as:

1. "not conclusive" but as defined by LAW as:(in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.

or.

2.evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
Malcolm Scott
"Proof" is a good word to look at in depth. So, I agree with premise.

Merriam-Webster defines it as [I've only included the relevant ones - and made them bold]:

Full Definition of PROOF

1
a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact
b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning [note: this is the mathematical "proof", but has meaning here also.]

3
: something that induces certainty or establishes validity

5
: evidence operating to determine the finding or judgment of a tribunal [note: this is the Jury's truth, and our experience in how Jurors have responded in many recent high profile case is instructive, in that you never really know what they will conclude. Although at times I have been right in assessing what a jury will conclude, I have also been wrong.]

I just want to add one comment. In all the above derivations, only 1b, the mathematical proof is subject to precise rules. All the rest reside in the judgement of the reviewer (Jurors, peer-reviewers, etc.) So, to put it bluntly, one man's proof is not necessarily proof to another, and this is where intelligent, objective argument [I'm using "argument" as a Lawyer would] comes into play.

Just because one person thinks they are presenting proof, unless it can be mathematically (or some other scientific discipline) proven, it's subject to the opinion of the reviewer.

rd


In principle, I agree here , but would like to address this a little further. At this moment though, I need to catch up on some pressing work and will get back a little later if that's ok?

Cheers,
Malcolm

Malcolm Scott

You are welcome to come and go as your schedule dictates.

Same for all.