Jonoh, you should sign up for a wikidot account. It's free, and it will give you the ability to edit your posts in this forum, rather than posting as 'guest'.
Regarding "Shifting the Burden", I merely said that no one can say that a specific thing will not happen. If that is being unscientific, I apologize, but I got the impression that the article I read was being categorical that it will not happen.
Yes that is unscientific, and it is the very definition of "shifting the burden". When the proponent of a positive claim resorts to the argument that their assertion is true because the opposition cannot disprove it, then they have lost the debate. It is always the responsibility of the party making the positive claim to show that their position is supported by the evidence.
The basic (i.e., categorical) assertion of this website is that the "2012 doomsday" is nothing more than a money-making vehicle for various authors, video producers, and television studios.
We support this position by showing that the specific arguments made in support of cataclysmic or transformative events in 2012 are unsound, have no evidence, and therefore no basis in fact. We also support that claim by showing that many or most of the proponents have a vested financial interest in promoting the idea of a 2012 doomsday.
We do in fact make specific positive claims as a counterpoint to the various claims made by the proponents, and when we do so we support them with evidence.
I am not asking that it be proven that a pole shift will not occur, however given that the question being asked is "will a geological pole shift occur", how does one answer? I was not saying that there will be a geological pole reversal, I was legitimately saying that it cannot yet be disproved.
Actually, this specific claim can be disproved. We know from geologic evidence that the overall field strength of the earth's magnetic field has a bearing on when pole reversals can occur. I refer you once again to the Magnetic Pole Shift page, and specifically to the second image on that page. Click on it for a higher resolution version, or just look at it here.
This chart is showing the overall field strength of the earth's magnetic field over the last 0.9 million years. The thick black vertical bar represents the time since the last reversal. The dashed line represents a field strength of 4 VADM (1022Am2). Below 4 VADM the locations of the poles begin to be more mobile, and there is a possibility of an 'excursion'… a significant geomagnetic wander. Under 2 VADM the possibility of a polar reversal becomes significant. Currently the level is a bit under 6 VADM, and dropping. The best estimate of when the field strength could drop under 2 VADM is somewhere between 1000 and 5000 years at the earliest… if the field strength continues to drop at its current rate.
In other words, based on the evidence before us, there is no possibility of a pole shift occurring in the next three years.
Second point: The geologic record is clear on the fact that pole shifts do not happen within a few hours, days, weeks, months or years. They occur over extended periods of time, usually thousands of years. This is sudden only on a geologic time frame. I refer you to the sources of the Magnetic Pole Shift page for the supporting citations.
In other words, it is impossible to say that even if we are at the beginning of a pole shift now, that it would occur in 2012. Rather it would occur over several hundred to a few thousand years.
A subtil difference from demanding proof of something NOT occurring, which is shifting the burden.
Not really. You are trying to make a distinction without a difference. You attracted my attention on twitter with the claim that you were 'debunking the debunkers'. You appear to be claiming that our position is incorrect, and are therefore requesting that we stipulate that a pole shift in 2012 cannot be ruled out. That is "shifting the burden". Regardless, we have answered your request with evidence, and you have not provided any evidence in support of the claim you are defending.
Moving on, you appear to be stipulating to my four bullet points. However, your final paragraph has me puzzled. You say:
In all seriousness though, attempting to prove that there will not be a pole reversal is not shifting the burden. This is a theory. Prove what will happen then!
I'm not sure what you mean. We are the ones showing that a pole reversal will not happen. You appear to be defending Geryl's claim that a solar-flare induced pole shift will happen between December 19th and 23rd 2012. If that is not your position, then what, exactly, are you arguing?
Then you demand that we "Prove what will happen". This is, once again, shifting the burden. We do not need to prove what will happen in order to refute the specific claim of a pole reversal. We merely need to show that the claim of a pole reversal in 2012 is not based on evidence. We go well beyond this, and show that the claim of a pole reversal in 2012 is actually counter to the available evidence.
Jonoh (guest) 04 Dec 2009 20:15