Originally Posted by robtek (Post 428527)

a) has lots of evidence that 100 octane was used but no proof that 87 octane was not used

Originally Posted by robtek (Post 428527)

a) has lots of evidence that 100 octane was used but no proof that 87 octane was not used

b) has evidence that 87 octane was used in the RAF and possibly in the FC but can not prove the use by the FC

Originally Posted by Seadog (Post 428499)

and present their history prof with a thesis:

"RAF FC used 87 octane and 100 octane fuel during the Battle of Britain"

"An excellent thesis" says the prof, at the start of the term, "if you can prove it you will have altered our understanding of one of the most crucial battles in modern history."

A few months later they are called into the prof's office: "How are you two getting along with your paper? I expected something from you by now...but I'll let you have a few more days. By the way, what proof have you got? Remember, the term is almost over, and I expected a finished paper by now."

Crumpp and Kurfurst pull out a 1/2 dozen pages and place them on the prof's desk: "Well we have some papers dating from 1938 and we think that some aircraft manuals state that 87 octane was required."

"Hmmm..." says the prof, staring at the meagre number of pages: "You mean to say that's all you've got? I think you need to go the library, the archives, and the even the web, and dig up some solid evidence for 87 octane use during the actual battle...after all there's numerous sources that state that 100 octane fuel was used during the battle. You are now making an 'extraordinary claim' which is all well and good but as you well know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and I'm sorry gentleman, but I don't see any such proof in the rather sparse data that you've presented.

Crumpp and Kurfurst look downcast and stare at their feet: "We have looked high and low and this is all we can come up with."

"Oh my" says the prof... he pauses for a few moments, moves back to marking papers and then glances up and states: "No problem gentlemen; you have a few more days...just make sure that your paper states that you conclude that your thesis is false, based upon the lack of any direct evidence for 87 octane fuel use, and the mass of contradictory evidence stating that 100 octane fuel was in universal use. Good day"

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon (Post 428534)

The fact that Dowding felt the need to send out a memo to all squadrons in FC during the early stages of the battle reminding all pilots not to use +12 lbs boost for trivial reasons is proof enough that all squadrons were using 100 octane fuel.

By your analogy (one side lots of evidence, the other side not so much - but a more practical approach) anything can be proven - which is precisely how the various conspiracy theories about JFK's assassination, or whether or not Apollo reached the moon work. Just produce enough "evidence" to leave a little doubt, and throw lots of smoke and noise around to provide distraction and make the few facts thrown in seem far more important than they really are. I guess it works because people are taken in by this ahistorical approach to historical research all the time.

Originally Posted by robtek (Post 428542)

The facts are:

1. evidence is no proof

2. to preclude a possibility, however remote, without proof is unscientific

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon (Post 428543)

Evidence is no proof? That means any evidence can be dismissed out of hand, regardless of how solid it is. How do you work that one out?

If that's true, I can prove the moon is made out of cheese; the evidence is lacking because when the Apollo astronauts landed with samples of moon cheese they were immediately turned into toasted cheese sandwiches and eaten by hungry NASA staff, and the reports were then fudged and rocks were substituted.

Now, you can provide evidence in the form of moon rocks and scientific reports and I can dismiss the evidence because I didn't actually travel to the moon with the astronauts and watch them pick up the rocks, nor did I see the scientific reports being processed. So the fact is the moon is made out of cheese and my belief in that is scientific because I am not precluding the possibility, however remote it may seem; in fact there's even a web page showing that the moon is made of cheese and that's evidence in itself. It's a brilliant concept because I can prove anything I like! :cool:

Originally Posted by robtek (Post 428554)

Evidence is only proof if it removes any doubt.