In the Spotlight titled "Proof is Framing the Question", Courtney talks about the subjective nature of proof.

➡️ https://www.farsightprime.com/featured/videos/farsight-spotlight-26january2025-proof-vimeo

But there's one problem with that: He only talks about "positive proof", while ignoring "negative proof" completely. If you are not familiar with the concepts of positive and negative proof, here's a short explanation:

1. Positive proof is what most people think proof is: It's based in the scientific method, which means to start with a conjecture and then gather evidence in order to prove the conjecture correct or incorrect. For example, you assume that there will be a total solar eclipse in Spain on August 12, 2026, because of your knowledge of how celestial bodies move within the solar system. You then collect the evidence by observing the sun at that day. If you see a total solar eclipse, it's proof that your conjecture was correct.

2. Negative proof on the other hand is logical proof what something is NOT. Most people are not aware of this concept although they use it all the time. Negative proof is the process of elimination by comparing evidence with already known patterns. For example, you see something flying in the sky. Is it a bird? It is not. Is it a plane? It is not. In doing that, you prove that whatever is flying in the sky is neither a bird nor a plane. You don't know what it is, but you know what it is not.

And here's why this is so important: While positive proof only delivers probabilities, as the evidence could be insufficient, negative proof delivers certainty. You can be 100% certain what something is not.

This concept is also called "apophatic inquiry", and it's crucial when it comes to knowing rights:

➡️ https://www.farsightprime.com/forums/general/72111-understanding-natural-law

This sounds good, but it is not correct when negative proof is actually applied, or exploited. Negative proof, in actual practice, is simply denial. It is the nonacceptance of evidence. This is the sham that Carl Sagan used to spout when he said the very unscientific claim, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." In science, there are clear criteria for evidence, often referred to as the alpha level of a statistical test. Carl Sagan was demanding that the alpha level be changed whenever he arbitrarily did not like the evidence or the claim. For Carl, it did not matter what alpha level was set. He was simply never going to accept any claim that he did not agree with in advance. That is not science. You cannot move the alpha level of a test on a whim. In your example, negative proof is used to say, "It is not an extraterrestrial space ship."

«[strong]Skeptics or Pseudoskeptics?[/strong]
A genuine skeptic is one who inquires with an open mind, using critical thinking to evaluate all available evidence. Unfortunately, some who laud themselves as skeptics are in fact [em]pseudoskeptics[/em]. They are committed to a narrow metaphysical belief system, often without being aware that they are. On the contrary, they frequently claim to hold no beliefs at all, just the unvarnished scientific “truth” and automatically dismiss any evidence that contradicts their fossilized viewpoint.

[em]Skeptical About Skeptics[/em] shines a light on these actors with articles by top scientists and thinkers, revealing the skeptics’ faulty critiques and underhanded methods. We highlight controversies in specific fields of research and examine prominent pseudoskeptics and skeptical organizations.»
-Quoted from https://skepticalaboutskeptics.org/

There are some damn good reasons why Dr. Dean Radin no longer «wastes his time» trying to «argue» with the pseudo-skeptics; although he also has historically used examples of how the [pseudo-]skeptics would rather believe that there are little green men on Mars before they ever accept that there is any such thing as evidence for psychic-abilities...

P.S.: @ Dr. Courtney Brown
You should probably set a Task to remote-view Carl Sagan and whether CIA (or rogue-faction of it) had any involvement with the «[pseudo-]science» that Carl Sagan started promoting.

@Courtney Brown

"Negative proof, in actual practice, is simply denial."

No, it is not. Here's a simple example where you yourself used negative proof:

The recorded UFOs aren't bugs because they don't have wings.

It's not denial, unless you're saying that we have to take the possibility into account that there are bugs flying around that don't have wings.

"In your example, negative proof is used to say, "It is not an extraterrestrial space ship."

No, that's not the same concept. You conflate negative proof and prejudice. As I said: Negative proof is the process of elimination by comparing evidence with already known patterns. If we say "that's not an extraterrestrial space ship", the question is: How do we know? Do we know that ETs don't exist? Or do we know *all* ET space ships so we can exclude all of them as a possibility?

Another example: Is it a physical craft or a hologram? Can we say with certainty that it's not a hologram? Now imagine you observe an UFO interacting with a cloud, leaving a trail behind. A hologram wouldn't do that, so the change within the cloud would be proof that it's not a hologram.

Re: «Now imagine you observe an UFO interacting with a cloud, leaving a trail behind. A hologram wouldn't do that, so the change within the cloud would be proof that it's not a hologram.»
How do you know that Holograms don't or can't leave trails behind ?
And UFO by definition means «Unidentified» so you could very well be observing a hologram !
Even the cloud itself could also just be a hologram ! For that matter...
A whole entire book exists with the literal following title: «The Holographic-Universe» !

How anyone can become convinced that they have 100% proof of anything is beyond me and is a huge red flag to reasoning.

There are propositions that reasonably imitate "100%" proof. There is-

*"I've encountered something seemingly pressing for me to act on. Given an array of pondered choices (a through G) I am selecting choice C, as it has the most sound proof from my analysis."

*"I come to conclusion Y because all alternative conclusions are unconvincing contestants"

So far I don't see see any helpful information from Mark Passio. Just some strange complicated verbiage that doesn't really solve anything.

I'm not saying that Courtney is a master of analytical philosophy (neither am I nor do I think that discipline is the ultimate guide to reasoning) and I think at times he could take a little less time defending arguments with a sort of half humorous half scholarly spin (in fact it's the problem of most modern scientists) - but I definitely wouldn't use anything from Mark Passio so far as a guide for challenging the merits

@Aéius Cercle

"How do you know that Holograms don't or can't leave trails behind ?"

Because of how the term hologram is defined. A hologram is a recording of an interference pattern that can reproduce a 3D light field using diffraction. The reproduced light field is not "physical", whereas physical means it doesn't interact with other physical objects (like the cloud, for instance).

"And UFO by definition means «Unidentified» so you could very well be observing a hologram !"

Knowing that it's not a hologram doesn't mean that you have identified the object. You have excluded a possibility, but it doesn't tell you what the object is and who is flying it.

"Even the cloud itself could also just be a hologram !"

Yes. So in order to exclude that possibility, you have to know that the cloud is not a hologram. That's why I said: Negative proof is the process of elimination by comparing evidence with already *known* patterns. If you don't know wether the cloud is physical or just a projected light show, you can't use it for negative proof.

"A whole entire book exists with the literal following title: «The Holographic-Universe» !"

The point of that theory is to say that our whole universe could be a hologram. If this is the case, what we call "physical" is nothing but the interaction between projected light fields *within* the hologram. From the outside view, which would be the higher reality the hologram is being projected from, we wouldn't be physical, just like a hologram that we create is not physical to us (physical means tangible).

@Tazz

"How anyone can become convinced that they have 100% proof of anything is beyond me and is a huge red flag to reasoning."

Imagine you walk through a forest. How do you know that the trees you observe are not cars?

"I've encountered something seemingly pressing for me to act on. Given an array of pondered choices (a through G) I am selecting choice C, as it has the most sound proof from my analysis."

This is positive proof. Your choices are the conjectures, and you choose the one with the highest probability of solving the problem. If choice C does solve your problem, your conjecture of it being the most sound of the choices would be true.

"I come to conclusion Y because all alternative conclusions are unconvincing contestants"

Positive proof again.

"So far I don't see see any helpful information from Mark Passio. Just some strange complicated verbiage that doesn't really solve anything."

He is explaining what a right is, which is crucial knowledge for ending the prison planet.

➡️ https://www.farsightprime.com/forums/general/72396-understanding-rights

Perhaps you will like this thing (or hate it, whichever) I was writing back in something like 2009. I never got it to the level of "publication" that I wanted. But to hell with it, there it is anyways.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sQlxDAwU9dFbcOVc3RIf0QiJXxKKtsDdmR5ewZMvVQQ/edit?usp=sharing

So, let's talk about Tazz's essay "Extraordinary Belief and Rational Approach", but first things first:

Definition of rationality: Rationality is the quality of being guided by or based on reason. In this regard, a person acts rationally if they have a good reason for what they do, or a belief is rational if it is based on strong evidence.

Definition of evidence: Evidence for a proposition is what supports the proposition. It is usually understood as an indication that the proposition is true. The exact definition and role of evidence vary across different fields. In epistemology, evidence is what justifies beliefs or what makes it rational to hold a certain doxastic attitude.

Quote from the essay, page 2:

"There are large collectives based on irrational arguments, assimilating people and destroying opponents. Suppose a statement by the leaders of a collective, addressed to its followers, referring to them such as "the freedom loving, freedom fighting, truth seeking people" (ie: "good" people). This is looping the assumption "if you joined us, you must be good" and therefore "because you're good, this collective is good" - a circular argument from which there is no escape. Something is amiss."

My answer to that: Rationality NEVER applies to collectives. It ALWAYS applies to individuals.

If you understand this simple truth, you will see that the true purpose of almost all collectives is to override rational thought of individuals. Why do you want a leader telling you that you are good? Because in reality, you aren't. It's so much easier to join a group – a so called echo chamber – that reinforces your delusion, instead of being rational and look at the actual evidence.

You don't need a collective to do good, and you certainly don't need a collective to be right. Only people who understand that can create a collective that reflects goodness. Because rationality is not coming from the collective, and never will.