Guest XplsvBam Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Right until proven wrong. .or. Wrong till proven right. Just doing a poll to see the rational behind you tippers. Back up your choice with a logical reason. If not sure think about any debatable topic to help you figure how you would answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonwizerd Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 depends on the question... ex: i have wings on my back! - wrong until proven right I have 2 real eyes - right until proven wrong... but i have something to ask you concerning another topic... boy until proven girl or girl until proven boy? huh? think about that!!! other than that... i do have wings on my back... (takes of angel wings) and now i don't so there! Yayyyyyy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest XplsvBam Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 depends on the question... ex: i have wings on my back! - wrong until proven right I have 2 real eyes - right until proven wrong... but i have something to ask you concerning another topic... boy until proven girl or girl until proven boy? huh? think about that!!! other than that... i do have wings on my back... (takes of angel wings) and now i don't so there! wow thank you for starting off this topic with obvious ground for a HUGE tangent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Putter Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 How about neither until proven either? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonwizerd Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 depends on the question... ex: i have wings on my back! - wrong until proven right I have 2 real eyes - right until proven wrong... but i have something to ask you concerning another topic... boy until proven girl or girl until proven boy? huh? think about that!!! other than that... i do have wings on my back... (takes of angel wings) and now i don't so there! wow thank you for starting off this topic with obvious ground for a HUGE tangent.er, sorry lol but honeslty i think believe that you're right until proven wrong... like innocent until proven guilty... Yayyyyyy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest XplsvBam Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 How about neither until proven either? Aww the paradox. So you choose not to be biased on any matter? but honeslty i think believe that you're right until proven wrong... like innocent until proven guilty... Sure why not, seems to work good for america. What if you were guilty until proven innocent? If you are innocent you would never be free unless you could convince the judge you were innocent. scarry :anxious:. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viktorkrum77 Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 You are considered wrong, you are making an hypothesis. And you can or can't back that up once you've proven it right or wrong. That is in the case of a theory, or presenting a theory. Me doing staff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apinagez Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 If I trust the person it's right until proven wrong. When I don't it's wrong until proven right. ^The most disturbing signature on Tip.it^Last.fm|HELLY KAYLA!|Oh the mehagurtz!|#Siencemakers"they care less about their spelling mistakes then I." - Lionheart"apinagez... let me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest XplsvBam Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 If I trust the person it's right until proven wrong. When I don't it's wrong until proven right. but what if you don't know the person? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apinagez Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 If I trust the person it's right until proven wrong. When I don't it's wrong until proven right. but what if you don't know the person? If I don't know the person I'm more careful, but if I sympathize with the person, I'll much likely trust him/her. ^The most disturbing signature on Tip.it^Last.fm|HELLY KAYLA!|Oh the mehagurtz!|#Siencemakers"they care less about their spelling mistakes then I." - Lionheart"apinagez... let me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam007 Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 It depends on the situation. In a court case where all the details of what really happened aren't available and lives lie in the balance, the process has to be different. You can't assume someone's wrong and force him to prove himself right if he doesn't have any evidence. But overall when we're dealing with science, the best way to go is to be wrong until proven right. I do think it's too much of a black/white issue in the way you're presenting it though, and you can't apply one rule to every situation either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killersushipunk Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 How about not proven untill proven proven? :P I used to have a link to my school's project to provide fresh water to a Kenyan Village, but the sig police changed the link to say something, which, if followed, leads to an "ahem" adult website. Let me ask you. Which do you think is worse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unknownmasterofnothing Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 neither right or wrong until proven right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cloaked_Shadow Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 I also think it depends upon the situation. But if I have to choose, it would be 'wrong until proven right'. Otherwise we would make ridiculously stupid assumptions that are impossible to prove wrong, and therefore considered right. E.g Hypothesis: The edge of the universe is made out of chocolate monkeys. Argument: No...Thats stupid. Rebuttal: You can't prove it wrong...so it's right! Then you get a scientific paper on the structure and size of the chocolate monkey Universal Edge. It would be hilarious, but oh so stupid. ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
issy2 Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Neither is right or wrong, until both are proven right or wrong. That's the most logical, morally right idea I can think of. 8-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete_the_Viscous Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 How about neither until proven either? ...I agree. deviantart account Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assassin_696 Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 I'd go for innocent (right) until proven guilty (wrong) for most cases, unless i really dislike the person. "Da mihi castitatem et continentam, sed noli modo" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest XplsvBam Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 It depends on the situation. In a court case where all the details of what really happened aren't available and lives lie in the balance, the process has to be different. You can't assume someone's wrong and force him to prove himself right if he doesn't have any evidence. But overall when we're dealing with science, the best way to go is to be wrong until proven right. I do think it's too much of a black/white issue in the way you're presenting it though, and you can't apply one rule to every situation either. So the big bang theory is false because it isn't proven? I understand I'm asking very black/white but people tend to stick with their rational regardless of situations, not always but mostly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest XplsvBam Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Neither is right or wrong, until both are proven right or wrong. That's the most logical, morally right idea I can think of. 8-) You wouldn't be able to prove it right or wrong with out making assumptions, and by making assumptions you pick a side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
issy2 Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Neither is right or wrong, until both are proven right or wrong. That's the most logical, morally right idea I can think of. 8-) You wouldn't be able to prove it right or wrong with out making assumptions, and by making assumptions you pick a side. So what you do is assume an assumption (lol) prove it right/wrong, assume an assumption from the other side (lol) and prove it right/wrong. You do this in stages, taking fact and trying to piece things together. 8-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueLancer Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 So the big bang theory is false because it isn't proven? I understand I'm asking very black/white but people tend to stick with their rational regardless of situations, not always but mostly. That's why it's called a theory. Just because there isn't "conclusive" evidence, it doesn't mean it still couldnt've happened. In (justful) criminology, a person is always innocent until proven guilty. Therefore it depends on where the question is presented. Therefore = neither until proven either Is not a paradox, but is the only logical solution to this thread because it can be applied to anything. Neutrality without bias is the only way of judgement that can be applied to everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedepressedsquirrel Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 So the big bang theory is false because it isn't proven? I understand I'm asking very black/white but people tend to stick with their rational regardless of situations, not always but mostly. Wrong. The big bang theory has been proven, as has the theory of evolution , the theory of relativity, and every other scientific term with the word "theory" in it. I hope one day you will move out of whatever backwater slum you live in and learn that the word "theory" in science has a different meaning than the word "theory" in regular life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aznhuskarl Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 but honeslty i think believe that you're right until proven wrong... like innocent until proven guilty... Sure why not, seems to work good for america. What if you were guilty until proven innocent? If you are innocent you would never be free unless you could convince the judge you were innocent. scarry :anxious:. Not every law system works like that. There's an opposite of that principle in some countries where you are innoncent until you're proven guilty {they are some case that you must disaprove all your guilt in order to be innoncent.} This will make the same problem within the same question and you "can't" prove this. -=Aznhuskarl=- Cleric-=20Cent=- JuggernaughtMore to come... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkmage099 Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 How about the likely until proven the unlikely? Trix.--quit WoW as of 12/07Thank you 4be2jue for the wonderful sig and avatar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueLancer Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 So the big bang theory is false because it isn't proven? I understand I'm asking very black/white but people tend to stick with their rational regardless of situations, not always but mostly. Wrong. The big bang theory has been proven, as has the theory of evolution , the theory of relativity, and every other scientific term with the word "theory" in it. I hope one day you will move out of whatever backwater slum you live in and learn that the word "theory" in science has a different meaning than the word "theory" in regular life. Actually, while I'd like to add the theory of gravity to your list and note that I'm a big supporter of the big bang theory, I'd like to point out for facts' sake there is no general consensus among physicists and scientists on the true nature of the big bang theory and there are many alternative theories. It's probably the most logical theory for the birth of the world but it is not a fact proven beyond doubt (unlike gravity) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now