The Questions U.F.O. skeptics can't answer

You'll pardon me if I choose to ignore more red herrings regarding science when you've demonstrated that you can't grasp the very fundamentals of logical argument.

I didn't say you couldn't come to a conclusion, did I?

Get it straight. Get your own position straight, get mine straight, get it straight what this is actually about.

If you make a claim regarding your conclusion, then you must back that claim up with evidence in order for a skeptic to believe it.

If you don't care if a skeptic believes it, then why did you open this thread?

If you want to ask why skeptics don't have to provide "counter" evidence, then I've explained that over and over again.

reply to post by polomontana


Don't waste your time. He has already made up his mind. He has "drawn his own conclusions"

If he wants to close his mind, that is his choice.

Let his Ignorance be his Muse.

Originally posted by polomontana

You are not using the fundamentals of science. Where did you get that nonsense?

I made the claim and provided the evidence. You have provided nothing but a website about logic as if that gives you immunity from any logic or reason.

It's basic logical reasoning, Montana. Seriously. I assure you, you can find this in any textbook on critical thinking.

For the last time: if you make a claim, it is up to you to support that claim. The onus of proof is on you. That's how logic works. That's how science works. If you deny that, you're an idiot. Period.

Originally posted by thrashee

If you want to ask why skeptics don't have to provide "counter" evidence, then I've explained that over and over again.

Yes, why is it only Skeptics who don't have to provide evidence to back up their claims?

Everyone else has to. Why not you?

Originally posted by TruthTellist
reply to post by polomontana

 

Don't waste your time. He has already made up his mind. He has "drawn his own conclusions"

If he wants to close his mind, that is his choice.

Let his Ignorance be his Muse.

Good points,

He let a website tell him he doesn't have to debate issues. They tell him he need no evidence in a debate about evidence.

Originally posted by TruthTellist
reply to post by polomontana

 

Don't waste your time. He has already made up his mind. He has "drawn his own conclusions"

If he wants to close his mind, that is his choice.

Let his Ignorance be his Muse.

Give me a break.

All I've done is apply reason and logic throughout this debate and demonstrate with those same tools how Montana's argument simply does not hold water.

Not one of you has been able to respond to me using logic and reason, or demonstrate where I've failed in doing this. All you can do is continue to post youtube links as "evidence", keep bringing up eyewitness testimony as proof, and act as though you can skirt around the onus of proof simply because you want to believe in something.

In the meantime, the skeptics will continue to be skeptics precisely because of how you two have acted in here.

If you ever decide to be big boys and actually come to the plate with some reason, some logic, and some good hard facts, then by all means, the skeptics are willing to listen.

Originally posted by TruthTellist

Originally posted by thrashee

If you want to ask why skeptics don't have to provide "counter" evidence, then I've explained that over and over again.

Yes, why is it only Skeptics who don't have to provide evidence to back up their claims?

Everyone else has to. Why not you?

Because it's the burden of proof. This is not a new concept. Look it up.

You're all missing one very small, but very important point:

I NEVER MADE A CLAIM TO BEGIN WITH. THEREFORE, I HAVE NOTHING TO PROVE.

Jesus, you're a thick lot.


[edit on 29-7-2008 by thrashee]

Originally posted by TruthTellist

Originally posted by thrashee

If you want to ask why skeptics don't have to provide "counter" evidence, then I've explained that over and over again.

Yes, why is it only Skeptics who don't have to provide evidence to back up their claims?

Everyone else has to. Why not you?

Nope, science is built on debates about theory and thought experiments.

Have you ever read the Einstein/Bohr debates?

Do you know who Neils Bohr is?

You keep mentioning science.

Have you ever debated Theoretical Physics? Things like String Theory and quantum loop gravity?

Have you ever tried to debate this issues without evidence? You would be laughed out of the debate.

Originally posted by polomontana
Good points,

He let a website tell him he doesn't have to debate issues. They tell him he need no evidence in a debate about evidence.

Please. All I've done is debate the issue. All you've done is plug your eyes and cry, "show me your evidence, otherwise my evidence is right."

The website didn't tell me anything. I found it for YOU, because you were too lazy to look up logic on your own. If you want to believe all of what I've said about logic is wrong, then look it up for yourself elsewhere, and look like a fool.

If someone claims string theory is correct and another person claims it's not correct, they both have to bring evidence to the debate.

Please stop using science as an excuse not to have any evidence. You give science a bad name.

Originally posted by polomontana

Originally posted by TruthTellist

Originally posted by thrashee

If you want to ask why skeptics don't have to provide "counter" evidence, then I've explained that over and over again.

Yes, why is it only Skeptics who don't have to provide evidence to back up their claims?

Everyone else has to. Why not you?

Nope, science is built on debates about theory and thought experiments.

Have you ever read the Einstein/Bohr debates?

Do you know who Neils Bohr is?

You keep mentioning science.

Have you ever debated Theoretical Physics? Things like String Theory and quantum loop gravity?

Have you ever tried to debate this issues without evidence? You would be laughed out of the debate.

See, those are red herrings. One day you'll figure it out.

You are still confusing your claim that aliens exist with my non-existent claim.

Let me buy you a clue:

If I had approached this argument stating, "Aliens do not exist", then I would have made a claim. Then yes, I'd have to show prove of that.

But guess what. I didn't make that claim, did I? No. You made the claim, so my sole job is to determine if that claim carries weight.

I don't need external evidence to do that. I judge your claim and your evidence on its own merits.

I know this is a *really hard* concept to grasp, but keep trying.

Originally posted by polomontana
If someone claims string theory is correct and another person claims it's not correct, they both have to bring evidence to the debate.

Please stop using science as an excuse not to have any evidence. You give science a bad name.

EXACTLY!!!

Now you're getting it!

Now--I NEVER STATED ALIENS DON'T EXIST.

Therefore, I HAVE NOTHING TO PROVE.

ONLY YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO PROVE. AND YOU FAILED TO DO SO.

reply to post by thrashee


So you are Trolling?

Or are you lying?

or is it both?

Originally posted by thrashee

Originally posted by polomontana

Originally posted by TruthTellist

Originally posted by thrashee

If you want to ask why skeptics don't have to provide "counter" evidence, then I've explained that over and over again.

Yes, why is it only Skeptics who don't have to provide evidence to back up their claims?

Everyone else has to. Why not you?

Nope, science is built on debates about theory and thought experiments.

Have you ever read the Einstein/Bohr debates?

Do you know who Neils Bohr is?

You keep mentioning science.

Have you ever debated Theoretical Physics? Things like String Theory and quantum loop gravity?

Have you ever tried to debate this issues without evidence? You would be laughed out of the debate.

See, those are red herrings. One day you'll figure it out.

You are still confusing your claim that aliens exist with my non-existent claim.

Let me buy you a clue:

If I had approached this argument stating, "Aliens do not exist", then I would have made a claim. Then yes, I'd have to show prove of that.

But guess what. I didn't make that claim, did I? No. You made the claim, so my sole job is to determine if that claim carries weight.

I don't need external evidence to do that. I judge your claim and your evidence on its own merits.

I know this is a *really hard* concept to grasp, but keep trying.

So you are proving my point, you are equating your opinion to direct and circumstantial evidence.

Really, that's this is the most illogical thing you have said tonight.

I'm going to bed, get some evidence and try again tomorrow.

Originally posted by TruthTellist
reply to post by thrashee

 

So you are Trolling?

Or are you lying?

or is it both?

If you'd like to accuse me of lying, then prove it. I'm done with dealing with a bunch of children who want to pretend to use logic and instead blunder about like blind men failing to grasp the simplest of logical tenants.

Originally posted by thrashee

Originally posted by polomontana
If someone claims string theory is correct and another person claims it's not correct, they both have to bring evidence to the debate.

Please stop using science as an excuse not to have any evidence. You give science a bad name.

EXACTLY!!!

Now you're getting it!

Now--I NEVER STATED ALIENS DON'T EXIST.

Therefore, I HAVE NOTHING TO PROVE.

ONLY YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO PROVE. AND YOU FAILED TO DO SO.

Nope but you have stated the evidence is incorrect and this why you stay clear of the evidence because you have none.

You have just pointed out the logical fallacy in your argument.

You think if you don't say I don't think they exist then that absolves you from having to have any evidence.

You stated the evidence was incorrect or you didn't agree with the conclusions of the evidence. If you think something else occured or it didn't occur in that way you have to provide evidence.

You are just providing an opinion and you know what opinions are like.

[edit on 29-7-2008 by polomontana]

reply to post by polomontana


Exactly the point I have been trying to convey....

reply to post by TruthTellist


Exactly,

I'm going to bed.

Originally posted by polomontana

So you are proving my point, you are equating your opinion to direct and circumstantial evidence.

Um, no.

Amazingly, you still don't understand.

Let's review. You made a claim that aliens exist. I NEVER made a claim that they don't.

Being a skeptic, I don't share a believe your claim. Now, because you two are the densest people I believe I've ever met in my life, let me explain this distinction.

There is a difference between making a claim that something does not exist and simply lacking a belief that it does.

This is fundamental, so do try to keep up.

The classic example of this is atheism. An atheist can believe there is no God (strong atheism), or simply lack a belief in God (weak atheism).

Now where is the difference, and why does it matter here, you ask?

And I'll tell you:

Because whoever makes a first claim is thus burdened to prove that claim. Get it? This is fundamental, again--if you don't believe me, get off your lazy behind and look it up.

So if I go to you, and say, "Aliens don't exist", I have made a claim, and the burden of proof is therefore on me.

If, instead, you come to me, and say, "Aliens exist", then it is now your responsibility to prove it. I simply lack a belief in your claim. I have no burden of proof. It's your claim, your evidence, and you must prove it.

Now--here's where the lightbulb will (hopefully) come on:

Montana, you made the claim that aliens exist. Therefore, you must prove to me that they do. I owe you NOTHING. Why? Because life is so unfair? Because it's just a dog-eat-dog world? NO. Because you are the one who made the claim. It's just that simple.

I don't have to prove ANYTHING to you. I'm the skeptic, remember? You're the one with the claim.

What I CAN do is evaluate your claim based upon the evidence given, and determine whether that evidence supports your claim. Whether your claim is "true", in effect.

Time after time, I've used NOTHING but logic and reasoning to show why your evidence did not support your claim.

I don't have to provide some "alternate theory" for you. I don't have to provide a better answer to an unknown.

Why?

Because I'm not the one trying to explain it!!

Let that sink in a good long while.

You tell me that these mysterious lights in the sky are actually aliens from another world. I tell you your evidence is not good enough to claim that. You don't turn around and then say, "Well, unless you can provide a better explanation, mine must be right!"

It just doesn't work that way. Period. You can pout, and be stubborn, and repeat more inane accusations all you want. It just doesn't work that way. Science doesn't work that way. Logic doesn't work that way. Reason doesn't work that way.

I don't have to provide you with a better answer in order to show that your answer is wrong.

That is the crux of this entire argument.

If you don't get it by now, then just give up. Live in a world of pseudo-logic and half-baked beliefs. I honestly don't care.

What I can't do any longer is attempt to maintain logical and rational debates with people who are simply going to ignore logic and reason.

reply to post by polomontana


polomontana, i am a very humble guy who tries to add something to the research: regardless one is a believer or a skeptik, reliability is what we need, and you KNOW it, because you are intelligent.
You will NEVER read one post from me in which i state "this is": i can say "this is IMHO": i love to study martian surface, i love that planet and i guess that after fifteen years i may know something about it, not sure: i may be wrong, of course. Look, you are absolutely correct, too many people dismiss what they don't know as just a rock: this is true and i admit it. But please, don't forget about us: we try to get as close as possible to the reality: i can't accept that this makes of me one of your enemies.