The physics of microwave heating are well understood:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_heating
What do you think is unexplained?
And why don't you tell us about the fuel additives? Save us some research?
Kristen Meghan, former US Air Force whistle-blower?
- Thread starter jvnk08
- Start date
- Status
The physics of microwave heating are well understood:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_heating
What do you think is unexplained?
And why don't you tell us about the fuel additives? Save us some research?
RolandD
Active Member
MikeC
Closed Account
What proprietry fuel additives?
Waht is allowed in JetA1 is defined by the standard covetring it - Def Std 91-91 Rev 7
Stadis 450 used to have a couple of proprietary components the precise nature of which was not revealed, but thanks to Tanker enemy having the MSDS on his website we now know what those are made up of, if not their exact nature - what is ther in this that is related to "contrail issues"?
Waht is allowed in JetA1 is defined by the standard covetring it - Def Std 91-91 Rev 7
Stadis 450 used to have a couple of proprietary components the precise nature of which was not revealed, but thanks to Tanker enemy having the MSDS on his website we now know what those are made up of, if not their exact nature - what is ther in this that is related to "contrail issues"?
David Fraser
Senior Member.
Well it looks like Kristen has shown her hand at last.
MikeC
Closed Account
Oh dear - soil contaminated at Tinker AFB?? Would that be something to do with it being a superfund site contaminated from previous industrial activities?
People were getting exposed to strontium chromate at Warner Robins.....on the ground.....from "chemtrails" at 30,000 feet somehow??
Actually no evidence that chemtrails exist at all, nor geoengineering.
Apparently the threats made to lock her up were in writing?? Where is it?
Phsychtropic drugs for depression?? Really?? OK - again - where's the evidence?
As we said a while back - she saw materials coming onto base and has no actual information about how they were used - but she doesn't actually say that she did - she just implies it, lays on the emotion - I was a perfect NCO, I had a daughter, they threatened me, etc
People were getting exposed to strontium chromate at Warner Robins.....on the ground.....from "chemtrails" at 30,000 feet somehow??
Actually no evidence that chemtrails exist at all, nor geoengineering.
Apparently the threats made to lock her up were in writing?? Where is it?
Phsychtropic drugs for depression?? Really?? OK - again - where's the evidence?
As we said a while back - she saw materials coming onto base and has no actual information about how they were used - but she doesn't actually say that she did - she just implies it, lays on the emotion - I was a perfect NCO, I had a daughter, they threatened me, etc
David Fraser
Senior Member.
Psychotropics is a general term for drugs that will affect brain chemistry. SSRI's for depression are one example.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Hmmmmm . . . Her implied conclusions may be incorrect regarding how the toxic substances became localized and in the concentrations she indicated but I would not doubt necessarily the fact she appropriately documented their presence . . . I would like to see her evidence. . . she seems to believe her story and is impassioned . . . I have no doubt she was an Air Force member and an NCO. . . .
ssfor27
Active Member
As a retired member of the United States Air Force, I find the things she is accusing the AF of rather offensive. Unlike her, I actually worked in the flight line environment my entire career, on several different airframes, and never saw anything that appeared out of the ordinary to me.
Has anyone ever seen these "documents" she claims to have saved, pulled up, and or published?
So some hazardous material requests came across her desk that, apparently, had no contractor name listed and somehow that changed her life? Maybe I am mistaken, but I believe barium is found in some types of hydraulic fluids as an anti-corrosive additive.
There are tens of thousands of companies out there who either have or had military contracts. Many of them are no longer in business but the parts and products remain in the Air Force supply system. Having experienced the frustration of dealing with the B-1B parts supply system (many contractors of whom went out of business quickly), it is no surprise to me that some hazardous materials requests might have a contractor name missing from them. And, if that were such a huge deal, why were these requests approved?
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I am also an Air Force retired member. . . I never met a Base or Wing Commander in 30 years that would have risked his people or the Air Force's reputation if employees were exposed to such an implied toxic threat . . . are there leaders capable of such complicity . . . Possibly . . . I don't think I ever met one however . . . if there are accuracies in her story I think it should be investigated by the appropriate agencies including the press . . .
Jump
New Member
And most of them cause violent thoughts, visions and actions.
Just read the warning labels from time to time.
F4Jock
Active Member
I've actually installed and serviced water and waste treatment equipment at Tinker. Plating and I believe galvanizing shops were there at that time. Electroplating and galvanizing rinse waste contains all sorts of interesting metals and other nasties. Once again, do some research on your own. This whole thing is unsubstantiated bunk, but you'll have to convince yourselves.
Jump
New Member
I agree with you here.
She has a lot of her bases covered, but a lot of them are just empty or lacking. I will be honest... I believe something is being dumped into the sky, but I have no idea what it is or what its purpose may be.
With that said, I hope she can produce this evidence she so vehemently states she has. Why wait for an attorney before blowing the whistle when you've apparently all ready gone about blowing said whistle in the first place, very publicly I might add, and claim to have no fears of any retribution?
Kristen would have to give us much more. I'm a believer in that chemicals are being dumped out of planes, but I also like to see either more solid proof, or at least something which makes me think "Wow, I can't explain that any other way."
Anyway, glad I found this forum. I like the lively and mostly civil debates being had here and I think it will be a great place to frequent.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
The normal chain of events when responding to a danger to personnel or property is to call in the experts within the area of responsibility to assess the level of danger and risk to continue operation. . . retesting and monitoring would have been immediate. . . once the danger level was determined the chain of command would have been notified and environmental assessment accomplished (if the danger was acute and serious, operations would have been suspended) . . . medical, legal and public relations experts would have had multiple emergency meetings . . this would have been repeated all the way to the Pentagon. . . .no squadron, group, or wing commander would have kept the information or ultimate decision to act or not act only at the local level. . . .
Bottom-line IMO, If what she says is true the knowledge was shared all the way to the top. . .
Bottom-line IMO, If what she says is true the knowledge was shared all the way to the top. . .
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
The hexavalent chrome(VI) containing strontium chromate Kristen Meghan Sternberg Edwards speaks about is part of a multi-step aluminum corrosion prevention coating system for airplanes. The sytem uses Alodine as a prewash which converts bare aluminum chemically to an oxide then a high build epoxy coating containing the strontium chromate. The Robins base where she claims to have worked did aircraft painting and re-painting and part of the process these coatings were removed. These bases have had contamination problems and perhaps some of what she speaks of is true.
However, as she has spoken about before, none of this can be related to geoengineering or anything sprayed from aircraft, except spray painting on the ground. Again, she is already being questioned in the video comments by people asking for how her case relates to chemtrails, and she is again relating it but at the same time denying it. There is also the part about being pregnant with a 9 year-old daughter and some year-counts which don't add up. I think she has mental issues sort of like Tourettes and just blurts stuff out sometimes like "radioactive barium". Barium isn't radioactive.
Todd Lavender looks like he actually helped the base solve some problems. He won't get a seat on AlexJones' show:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...loGwBg&usg=AFQjCNE6qkxnbMJ4yp6ROknZVcdmIwpNMA
However, as she has spoken about before, none of this can be related to geoengineering or anything sprayed from aircraft, except spray painting on the ground. Again, she is already being questioned in the video comments by people asking for how her case relates to chemtrails, and she is again relating it but at the same time denying it. There is also the part about being pregnant with a 9 year-old daughter and some year-counts which don't add up. I think she has mental issues sort of like Tourettes and just blurts stuff out sometimes like "radioactive barium". Barium isn't radioactive.
Todd Lavender looks like he actually helped the base solve some problems. He won't get a seat on AlexJones' show:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...loGwBg&usg=AFQjCNE6qkxnbMJ4yp6ROknZVcdmIwpNMA
solrey
Senior Member
I believe she probably did find chromium in a paint shop. According to the article about the contamination, chromium was found on some surfaces in a break room and there was an incident where they had a barbecue in or around the shop area and apparently used some carts from the shop. It sounds to me like some employees were not following proper protocol, such as washing their hands thoroughly before going into the break room, and a single isolated incident with the barbecue, rather than widespread contamination. OSHA did get involved as well. It's pretty obvious she's making a big deal out of a minor issue in what seems to be an attempt to extend her "fifteen minutes of fame" within conspiracy circles.
http://www.41nbc.com/news/local-news/933-former-rafb-bio-tester-talks-osha-citations
http://www.41nbc.com/news/local-news/933-former-rafb-bio-tester-talks-osha-citations
U
Unregistered
Guest
Kristen:
A few questions:
1) If you are the whistleblower you claim to be, why didn't you go to the IG when you were rebuffed by your chain of command?
2) How does an E5 come out of the Air Force and become a GS-12 without a college degree? (or did you earn you finish your degree while still in the AF)?
3) Why, when I search the internet, can I NOT find any information about you that shows that you have been around for more than a few months? This feels like a persona that was just created recently (and yes, I have expertise in this type of thing as I was an intelligence analyst in the Navy for 6 years as a targeting analyst).
4) What school are you earning your masters at? Which school did you earn your bacculearate at?
5) All of the citations you quoted in your "long response" are from non-peer reviewed journals or blogs. Do you have ANY peer reviewed articles?
6) Which conferences are you active at?
A few questions:
1) If you are the whistleblower you claim to be, why didn't you go to the IG when you were rebuffed by your chain of command?
2) How does an E5 come out of the Air Force and become a GS-12 without a college degree? (or did you earn you finish your degree while still in the AF)?
3) Why, when I search the internet, can I NOT find any information about you that shows that you have been around for more than a few months? This feels like a persona that was just created recently (and yes, I have expertise in this type of thing as I was an intelligence analyst in the Navy for 6 years as a targeting analyst).
4) What school are you earning your masters at? Which school did you earn your bacculearate at?
5) All of the citations you quoted in your "long response" are from non-peer reviewed journals or blogs. Do you have ANY peer reviewed articles?
6) Which conferences are you active at?
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Thanks for sharing this information. . . .It says much to me. . . .
1) Technically the NCO is correct she was doing her job . . .
2) Sounds like the mid level supervisors were sloppy and were not generally concerned or completely aware of the risks associated with their daily practices. . .
3) I had the same problem with universal precautions with personnel handling infectious material. . . you could reinforce and warn people all day long but people get busy or zoned out and overlook what most people would think is common sense. . .
4) Point being once this NCO identified sloppy practices or unsafe behavior . . . rational people managers should have acted quickly and appropriately . . . seems this turned into a personal vendetta towards her as a goodie two shoes making trouble where it was not wanted and the union and others saw a chance to gain some leverage over management. . . . personnel safety should have been the first priority for all involved . . . I bet her actions did some good . . . but bottom line this was a human behavior, management and training issue not a systemic plot to poison the environment. . . .
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
You shouldn't base your conclusions on simply her side of the story. Sounds like she also has an axe to grind, and she hasn't been forthcoming enough to earn that sort of blind trust.
Try Sternberg, probably maiden name.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Jay, did you read all the posts on this site including her responses to the events and accusations against her . . . ? http://www.41nbc.com/news/local-news/933-former-rafb-bio-tester-talks-osha-citations My years of experience in arbitrating such issues between the Union, management, OSHA, FDA, etc., etc., etc. is a story I have relived many times . . . usually everyone is right a little and wrong a little . . . I sense Kristen is not lying about the swabs from the workplace nor the results . . . the results if validated don't lie, the issue is what the results really mean and how to mitigate the situation if mitigation is required . . . I also smell the legal advisors getting involved probably advising management to slow roll any disclosure for liability and public relations issues . . . it all gets very complicated quickly and Kristen only knows what she was told and is tasked to do . . . I would not doubt she got threats because of fears such disclosure could lead to the loss of many jobs if actions were taken to extremes . . .P.S. She may have had an axe to grind as well . . . her honesty and pride was challenged . . . would be a normal human reaction . . .
U
Unregistered
Guest
As a licensed pilot, I can assure you that a well set up turn is absolutely detectable...even without visual reference to the horizon...
Your inner ear, however, may "screw up" the signal and tell you are heading to the left instead of the right however, climbing instead of diving, etc. It is something that is drilled into every pilot, at ALL levels of instruction from Sport Pilot all the way to Commercial pilot.
pseacraft
Active Member
She may not have fully comprehended the can of worms that she discovered and the full ramifications (as mentioned above) of opening pandora's box. Knowing how the AF leadership (lack there of in my biased retired Navy Chief opine) treats the kids where I work I can see how she felt like a coverup was being created. When in reality the CoC and legal beagles were just trying to find the correct course of action and the middle management screwed up how they advised/treated her which is typical in my opine. The AF screwed up with leadership when they ended the Warrant Officer Program. I do not believe she is a whistleblower in the true sense of the word just a misguided and well intentioned troop who is now caught up in something where she is being taken advantage of.
I was involved in a environmental study at AF Plant 19 in San Diego some years back. We had to wear respirators and monitors as we cleaned up our spaces from decades of bird waste and other possible atmosphere contaminants like PCB's from exploding transformers. The civil service employees where scared shitless and wanted all these questions answered by us and we were ordered to not talk to them about it by NavOSH. After the study was completed, it found no hazards in what we cleaned up, it was presented to all the employees. AF Plant 19 was on the California Hazardous Waste Sites list at the time and probably still is.
I was involved in a environmental study at AF Plant 19 in San Diego some years back. We had to wear respirators and monitors as we cleaned up our spaces from decades of bird waste and other possible atmosphere contaminants like PCB's from exploding transformers. The civil service employees where scared shitless and wanted all these questions answered by us and we were ordered to not talk to them about it by NavOSH. After the study was completed, it found no hazards in what we cleaned up, it was presented to all the employees. AF Plant 19 was on the California Hazardous Waste Sites list at the time and probably still is.
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
So, she is just an innocent victim who is now out to get back at the USAF by hitching her star to Michael Murphy and Alex Jones. She's gonna get used and spit out when they have no more need for her.
F4Jock
Active Member
Quite possible. Been there and seen things like that. Remember they also plated on site.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
My analysis is limited to her Air Force experience and reaction, not what she has done since . . .however, I can understand her lack of trust of the AF authorities that IMO contributed to her disillusionment . . . she was I think a highly motivated, capable and conscientious young NCO . . . so once she feels she is correct she is a force to deal with . . . once she understands she is being used by Murphy and Jones she may be very bad medicine for them to deal with as well . . .
MikeC
Closed Account
Ah - I should have looked up the definition - the way she used sas a snarl word it implied it was more than a wide and essentially meaningless term.
Thanks
justanairlinepilot
Active Member
Give me a break...I have read 5 pages of this thread and she has yet to reveal any proof?
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
There is basically nothing significant or related to "Chemtrail" type activity . . . she observed high levels of some toxic substances within the workplace spread by human activity and manufacturing process . . . known hazards which if properly handled are manageable . . . she discovered improper behavior and management . . . something found across the military and industry unfortunately . . . people being stupid . . . everything else she states are probably just as explainable . . .
lotek
Active Member
then comes here, mangles her intent, makes mixed message appeals to authority, mixes it into chemtrails, provides zero substantiation and old worn out disproven points, shows a confusing misunderstanding of science which should have precluded her from getting the degree she holds, keeps going public, etc then behold!! the super mysterious contamination is standard metal dipping bath leakage, something that makes up a huge portion of superfund sites.. All chemicals i personally and legally own between 400 and 800 grams of for the same reason, always used and disposed to safely.... No boogy man needed.
all the while there are hundreds of mindless unregistereds out there who feel vindicated and emboldened by the crap she said, but apparently didnt say. but they wont take note of that.
GB id like to thank you for atleast having a constant and unique theory of what you think if going on that is at least partially separate from the crap regurgitated in this thread.
all the while there are hundreds of mindless unregistereds out there who feel vindicated and emboldened by the crap she said, but apparently didnt say. but they wont take note of that.
GB id like to thank you for atleast having a constant and unique theory of what you think if going on that is at least partially separate from the crap regurgitated in this thread.
Post on chemtrail flu & parents moved to new thread:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/1376-Helping-parents-who-think-they-have-quot-Chemtrail-Flu-quot
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/1376-Helping-parents-who-think-they-have-quot-Chemtrail-Flu-quot
Last edited:
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Lotek . . . I assume I am GB . . . If so . . . thanks! . . . participants here might not always agree with me and I them, but I always try my best to be honest . . . it doesn't make me well liked but that is the way I have always been . . .
lotek
Active Member
i dont agree with you either, but i creeped your posts last night back about a year and atleast they are consistent as per your theory. however im sure you know i disagree with your usage of argument structure.
The avalanche nature of this thread is just so tiresome. questions asked,points put out there, glossed over and ignored only to be blind sided by something totally irrelevant that has been debunked years before either of us joined this website... mundane chemicals touted as proof, unrelated haarp interjections.... the proof is in your house somewhere? i bet the family dog ate it by now too huh
I really like Jay's list of questions. anyone pushing any point should be able to answer that in about as much time as it takes to write that long post she made about her credentials...
------------
confide....?!?! dafuq. i think what she means to say is the proof never existed.
The avalanche nature of this thread is just so tiresome. questions asked,points put out there, glossed over and ignored only to be blind sided by something totally irrelevant that has been debunked years before either of us joined this website... mundane chemicals touted as proof, unrelated haarp interjections.... the proof is in your house somewhere? i bet the family dog ate it by now too huh
I really like Jay's list of questions. anyone pushing any point should be able to answer that in about as much time as it takes to write that long post she made about her credentials...
------------
confide....?!?! dafuq. i think what she means to say is the proof never existed.
TWCobra
Senior Member.
I feel sorry for her. Her chemtrail "evidence" consists entirely of seeing shipments of aluminium oxide, barium and strontium arrive at a facility which is the largest USAF logistics and maintenance base, is the largest single site employer for the state of Oklahoma, and includes a base hospital that carries out radiology/diagnostic imaging. So what?
Her association with Info-wars seems bound to end badly for her, particularly with her admission that she has official documents in her possession. Prosecutions under the various official secrets legislation around the world never take into accounts the reasons why the laws were broken... you either observe the laws or you don't, unless you are a genuine whistleblower then some protection may be offered. either way if she releases official documents it will get very nasty for her.
She does appear to be enjoying the limelight, but I think someone needs to sit her down and point out where this is all heading. Being a martyr for the cause gets very old and lonely very quickly.
Her association with Info-wars seems bound to end badly for her, particularly with her admission that she has official documents in her possession. Prosecutions under the various official secrets legislation around the world never take into accounts the reasons why the laws were broken... you either observe the laws or you don't, unless you are a genuine whistleblower then some protection may be offered. either way if she releases official documents it will get very nasty for her.
She does appear to be enjoying the limelight, but I think someone needs to sit her down and point out where this is all heading. Being a martyr for the cause gets very old and lonely very quickly.
TWCobra
Senior Member.
As an airline pilot, I can tell you that modern autopilots can make a turn undetectable unless you are looking out.
Jazzy
Closed Account
That must be alarming when it occurs on a moonless night.
HappyMonday
Moderator
Here's the content of a tweet linking the video of Kristen Meghan's recent appearance, which is a good example of the hundreds per day presently filling the #chemtrails tag -
https://twitter.com/SuccessCoach4U2/status/322724159710978048External Quote:
lotek
Active Member
We ALL learn about lies of ommision as children.
Why call yourself a whistle blower if it is not related to the topic?
Why tout your credentials if they are not related to the topic?
Why say you have data if you dont plan to show it?\
Why claim to have seen chemicals when asked about chemtrails, only to later say they had nothing to do with chemtrails?
Why claim to have information about chemtrails, mindblowing information, then say you cant find it in your house?
Why claim to want to prove your belief in chemtrails, but when confronted by people who dont trust you and rightfully wish to have it proved, the people you should be most motivated to prove it to, only to say you were offended by being asked to substantiate your claims?
Why act like your 'proof' is something we have to win the right to see?
Why tell everyone about your education in science, only to fail to do any reading on atmosphearic science, or have kept up to date with widely accepted, 60 year old systems?
Why let countless people around you say things you publicly support and seem to agree with and not ever say you disagree but when they are shown to be wrong, you say you never agreed.
Why would you claim to have documents(property) in your possession which are illegal to posses, while going on the internet and not keeping inside the well outlined legal framework of whistleblower laws?
Why?
These are NOT the actions of an honest person.
These are NOT the actions of a well informed person
These are NOT the actions of a person who has consulted with a lawyer
These are NOT the actions of a person with data
These are NOT the actions of a person with an idea strong enough to stand on its own, independent from it's creator.
Scrutiny is not negativity. If you had gone to college for a field relating to science, you would be WELL aware of this. Perhaps its been a while?
As it stands. You have no data. Your claims are scientifically false and have been shown to be as such. You have made zero effort to rebuke this outside of appeal to authority.
The only logical conclusion is that you are either grossly ignorant of the fields of claim to have studied, or are in this for the attention you receive from the droves of scientifically undisciplined populous willing to follow you over the cliff.
A person with a factual ground to stand on would blast my ass out of the water with their well founded argument, data, and case. None of which you seem to have to provide.
I welcome you to prove me wrong. Within the framework of a proper civilized argument that is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".[1] This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictlylogical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question.[2][3]
Burden of proof is also an important concept in the public arena of ideas. Assuming both sides have agreed to reasoned discourse,[4] theburden of proof can serve as an effective tool to ensure that all relevant arguments from both sides of an issue are introduced. After common assumptions are established the mechanism of burden of proof takes over to keep those engaged in discourse focused on providing evidential warrant and cogent arguments for their positions.[5][6][7]
References
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
Why call yourself a whistle blower if it is not related to the topic?
Why tout your credentials if they are not related to the topic?
Why say you have data if you dont plan to show it?\
Why claim to have seen chemicals when asked about chemtrails, only to later say they had nothing to do with chemtrails?
Why claim to have information about chemtrails, mindblowing information, then say you cant find it in your house?
Why claim to want to prove your belief in chemtrails, but when confronted by people who dont trust you and rightfully wish to have it proved, the people you should be most motivated to prove it to, only to say you were offended by being asked to substantiate your claims?
Why act like your 'proof' is something we have to win the right to see?
Why tell everyone about your education in science, only to fail to do any reading on atmosphearic science, or have kept up to date with widely accepted, 60 year old systems?
Why let countless people around you say things you publicly support and seem to agree with and not ever say you disagree but when they are shown to be wrong, you say you never agreed.
Why would you claim to have documents(property) in your possession which are illegal to posses, while going on the internet and not keeping inside the well outlined legal framework of whistleblower laws?
Why?
These are NOT the actions of an honest person.
These are NOT the actions of a well informed person
These are NOT the actions of a person who has consulted with a lawyer
These are NOT the actions of a person with data
These are NOT the actions of a person with an idea strong enough to stand on its own, independent from it's creator.
Scrutiny is not negativity. If you had gone to college for a field relating to science, you would be WELL aware of this. Perhaps its been a while?
As it stands. You have no data. Your claims are scientifically false and have been shown to be as such. You have made zero effort to rebuke this outside of appeal to authority.
The only logical conclusion is that you are either grossly ignorant of the fields of claim to have studied, or are in this for the attention you receive from the droves of scientifically undisciplined populous willing to follow you over the cliff.
A person with a factual ground to stand on would blast my ass out of the water with their well founded argument, data, and case. None of which you seem to have to provide.
I welcome you to prove me wrong. Within the framework of a proper civilized argument that is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".[1] This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictlylogical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question.[2][3]
Burden of proof is also an important concept in the public arena of ideas. Assuming both sides have agreed to reasoned discourse,[4] theburden of proof can serve as an effective tool to ensure that all relevant arguments from both sides of an issue are introduced. After common assumptions are established the mechanism of burden of proof takes over to keep those engaged in discourse focused on providing evidential warrant and cogent arguments for their positions.[5][6][7]
References
- ^ Michalos, Alex. 1969. Principles of Logic. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. p 370 - "usually one who makes an assertion must assume the responsibility of defending it. If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed."
- ^ Leite, Adam. 2005. "A Localist Solution to the Regress of Justification." Australasian Journal of Philosophy 83: p. 418 - "[t]he point of articulating reasons in defense of one's belief is to establish that one is justified in believing as one does."
- ^ Leite, Adam. 2005. "A Localist Solution to the Regress of Justification." Australasian Journal of Philosophy 83: p. 403 - "justificatory conversation...[is]...characterized by a person's sincere attempt to vindicate his or her entitlement to a belief by providing adequate reasons in its defense and responding to objections"
- ^ Goldman, Alvin. 1994. "Argumentation and Social Epistemology." Journal of Philosophy, 91: 27-49.
- ^ Eemeren, Frans van, and Grootendorst, Rob. 2004. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 60 - "[t]here is no point in venturing to resolve a difference of opinion through an argumentative exchange of views if there is no mutual commitment to a common starting point"
- ^ Brandom, Robert. 1994. Making it Explicit. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. p. 222 - "[t]here are sentence types that would require a great deal of work for one to get into a position to challenge, such as 'Red is a color,' 'There have been black dogs,' 'Lighting frequently precedes thunder,' and similar commonplaces. These are treated as 'free moves' by members of our speech community --- they are available to just about anyone any time to use as premises, to assert unchallenged.",
- ^ Adler, Jonathan. 2002. Belief's Own Ethics. Cambridge: MIT Press. pp. 164-167
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
justanairlinepilot
Active Member
I completely agree
justanairlinepilot
Active Member
yeah what he said!!!
- Status
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Oregon UFO Lights seen by pilots [Starlink]
- Latest: lucothairish
