It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Astyanax
A Tough Sell
Interesting questions, but first a riposte to the member preceding me:
When the faithful express their sympathy for us poor scoffers and our narrow, impoverished lives and outlooks, they are really admitting that it is their own ability to find interest and excitement in the real world that is deficient, and that, unlike us, they must seek the spurious enchantment of fantasy to bring a little colour to their drab, hollow lives. Poor ickle chaps.
And with that off his chest, Scamandrius may now ponder the OP questions.
Q: What is sufficient to turn a theory into a reality?
A: Nothing. No statement can ever be wholly proven.
If it appears consistent with logic, however, it may be taken as true until it is disproved.
Take your UFO example. A photograph or video interview are worse than useless. An alien being, actual craft or other alien artifact would be acceptable -- but only if
- it could be examined and tested -- repeatedly, by different and suitably qualified people.
the test results were then examined and verified by 'peers' (similarly qualified people) of those doing the testing.
The 'repeatedly' part is very important, since it enables the examiners to test one another's observations and establish that they are true and accurate.
This is known as the scientific method.
Q: If you were collecting evidence to prove a theory, what evidence would be good enough?
A: Clearly you are talking about documentary evidence, since you dealt with physical evidence in your first question. Well, Internet sources are only any good if they can be verified in the same way you verify the authenticity of a printed document. Start by checking that the source exists and that its origin is the one claimed for it. Then check the reliability of the source -- is it honest, unbiased, not given to exaggeration and hyperbole, not trying to grind an axe or make a profit? Are statements made by the source on other important or related subjects trustworthy? Finally, check the accuracy of the statement against whatever other evidence you have. But in the end it's down to judgement. No source is ever 100 percent trustworthy, but you can get very close, especially with printed documents.
Internet sources are always regarded as unreliable unless they represent real-world institutions with a reputation for accuracy and probity (such as the Oxford English Dictionary or the Smithsonian Institution).
Q: If one of your answers is a newspaper story, how could you turn this into evidence to support your case so all that would read your research would believe it without a shadow of a doubt?
A: Oh, don't worry. If someone thinks a newspaper story is a proof of anything, you don't need to work any harder to convince them: they're silly geese who'll swallow anything you chuck at them.
Originally posted by NGC2736
It is the epitome of egotism to ASSUME that you scoffers alone have the true breadth of mind and soul to evaluate evidence...
There are many contrarians that have rich and fulfilling lives ASIDE from their willingness to evaluate evidence of a more esoteric nature.
It is the scoffers that dare not deviate from the herd mentality that actually have the more impoverished existence, not to mention lack of intellectual courage.
And only those bent on proving that it was in fact a hoax should be deemed by the scoffers as fit to judge the results, thereby undermining any hope of objectivity.
An alien being, actual craft or other alien artifact would be acceptable -- but only if
- it could be examined and tested -- repeatedly, by different and suitably qualified people.
History is replete with the number of times that scientific ideas and results were squashed by such reviewsthe test results were then examined and verified by 'peers' (similarly qualified people) of those doing the testing.
History is replete with the number of times that scientific ideas and results were squashed by such reviews, waiting in limbo for a day when the light of reason might once more see them.
And once more, the veracity of the source is accepted by the scoffers at their choosing, so therefor the results can again be manipulated.
Internet sources are always regarded as unreliable unless they represent real-world institutions with a reputation for accuracy and probity (such as the Oxford English Dictionary or the Smithsonian Institution).
Do we all notice a certain narrowness to the list of "acceptable" sources?
Originally posted by NGC2736
I am amazed that you find no good value in being open to looking at the world, but I guess if you're born to blinders... (canters on in vaguely insulting fashion for several paragraphs)