Actually, the burden of proof is on you to provide compelling evidence of killing intent rays or an authentic Togakure tradition that began during the Sengoku-jidai. It's not my duty to provide proof that your articles of faith are wrong. It's your duty to prove that they are right, or simply be satisfied that you have faith in them and that consequently, nobody else has to share your faith.
You need to provide proof for what you are saying, by citing sources for your beliefs, and arguments. Look up burden of proof in arguments in a philosophy dictionary.
I explained the strawman nature of your objections earlier in the thread -- and mentioned citations, too. Then I recall you said something very silly about Wikipedia.
You need to look that up in a dictionary too Malcolm. You need to read about that too why you are at it since you don`t seem to understand what a fallacy is. I can cite page numbers in several different books if you like.
Malcolm Sheppar posted I guess what Malcolm means by this is the Sakki test. If one is stating that as a fact that togakure Ryu was around in the Sengoku Jidai period and that it exists to this day as being taught by Dr Hatsumi Hatsumi then the burden of proof from a academic point of view, certainly in archaeology when i took my degree is on the person stating that fact. I know that if on an archaeological essay if I had put that the Togakure ryu existed during the sengoku Jidai as a fact, my professors would have said "Prove it" and when I couldn't they would fail me. Thats why its better to say "You Believe" and then provide your evidence. Things in history are very rarely FACT. However from a legal point of view the burden of proof argument runs contrary to the academic view in that it is up to the doubter (the accuser) to provide evidence that someone is lying, not for the defendant to prove they are not. I think thats it at the moment. we cannot prove 100% catergorically that te togakure ryu is really that old. Personally i believe it is, but I can't prove why I believe that, so I guess even on my part a lot of it is down to faith. Now turning to the sakki test issue. I have my own beliefs on this. Personally i don't think its anything mysterious and I think its possible through taijutsu that ones awareness changes. Thats my point of view. Of course if someone tells me otherwise and tells me that Hatsumi sensei emits death rays and the advanced practitioner like some jedi knight can sense it I will say prove it. Lets call in James Randhi. Anyway nough said, i'm off to do some levitation. Garth
Or just get over that fact that you'll probably never know, deal with it, then do something useful with your time. Faith doesn't have to be a part of it in the slightest.
Garth it depends on who is making the claims and the arguments. For example, if I state x I have the burden of proof for x, if you state y you have the burden of proof for y. That is primarily why I have been on Malcolm case (which he is missing the point) you should provide at least verifiable sources (i.e. citations) for your beliefs and arguments (unless purely logical one) - then you must provide a proof. It`s that simple!
Not the test per se, but claims surrounding the test. One of the most serious examples was when it was claimed (by Ben Cole IIRC) that Hatsumi could transmit sakki even when he himself was not administering the test. That assumes an intent to deceive. I'm not sure Hatsumi or Kawakami believe they're making untrue statements.
You have made arguments which require proof and citation. Skepticism is something else, until one makes an argument from skepticism. Then it requires a proof or proof. You should also look up ontology (metaphysical necessity) and skeptical arguments, in that dictionary you should buy, too. But this should start you off. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism/
Seeing as you appear to have missed the important part I'll repeat... 'Or just get over that fact that you'll probably never know, deal with it, then do something useful with your time. '
I'm comfortable with not knowing the depth of your faith in the Bujinkan, yet you keep feeling compelled to tell me all about it.
Given your apparent personal limitations, I also should have pointed out that coherent statements were also necessary.
No. You are not reading it correctly, or I am not saying it clearly enough. What I am trying to say is what is being argued about is not important to training and people are wasting their time on something that is irrelevant. You can not prove what you are arguing. The other side of the discussion can not prove what they are arguing. The best thing to do is not draw concrete conclusions about ANY subject until you find concrete evidence, and find something useful to do with you time. Accept that you will probably never know for certain. Deal with that, move on to something more useful. As far as 'faith' goes. My definition is believing something that you can never know to be true. My opinion is that believing something that can never be known to be true is a kind of idiocy, brought on by fear. With that definition I don't need 'faith' in the effectiveness of the Bujinkan, as I have experienced quality tuition first hand. As for the historical side, having a strong opinion on something that I don't know to be true is a waste of my time. There are better things to be dedicating my emotions to. Malcom, your posts have deteriorated over the last couple of days. I think that you don't need to go down that line.
