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

Originally posted by AlienCarnage

Originally posted by polomontana
reply to post by SaviorComplex

 

There's other ways that we come to know the truth outside of the scientific method. We come to know the truth through reason and investigation. We do it every in courts, police investigation and investigative journalism.

In courts, cases must be proven beyond a shodow of a doubt, as well as in police investigations, in journalism, they only need enough proof to get a good story out of it to sell their publication.

Now if you are going on the first two metods of proving something, then it must beyond a shadow of a doubt and nothing I have seen yet, be it supernatural or alien visitation has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. If you are going on proof the same way jounalism works, than you could prove the Easter Bunny, Santa Clause and Tooth Fairy are real.

[edit on 8/6/2008 by AlienCarnage]

I think you need to turn to Cour TV or Nancy Grace.

The standard is not beyond a shadow of a doubt, it's beyond a REASONABLE doubt.

The "standard of proof" is the level of proof required in a legal action to discharge the burden of proof, that is to convince the court that a given proposition is true. The degree of proof required depends on the circumstances of the proposition. Typically, most countries have two levels of proof or the balance of probabilities:

preponderance of evidence - (lowest level of proof, used mainly in civil trials)
beyond a reasonable doubt - (highest level of proof, used mainly in criminal trials)

In addition to these, the U.S. introduced a third standard called clear and convincing evidence, (which is the medium level of proof).

The first attempt to quantify reasonable doubt was made by Simon in 1970. In the attempt, she presented a trial to groups of students. Half of the students decided the guilt or innocence of the defendant. The other half recorded their perceived likelihood, given as a percentage, that the defendant committed the crime. She then matched the highest likelihoods of guilt with the guilty verdicts and the lowest likelihoods of guilt with the innocent verdicts. From this, she gauged that the cutoff for reasonable doubt fell somewhere between the highest likelihood of guilt matched to an innocent verdict and the lowest likelihood of guilt matched to a guilty verdict. From these samples, Simon concluded that the standard was between 0.70 and 0.74.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by polomontana


If you have ever sat on Jury duty you would know that this is not true. The judge badgers it into your head as well do the Lawyers, that is beyond a shadow of doubt, because reasonble doubt can be taken in many ways depending on how the individual interprets le evidence. Beyond a shadow of a doubt means there are no lingering douts, that the case has been totally 100% justified, which is much harder for the individual to put his or her own spin on the evidence provided. Now I am not saying that Jurers don't put their own spin on the evidence, I am just saying that by the standards set forth by the judicial system, they are not supposed to.

I know it states beyond reasonable doubt by discription however this is not how it is presented to you as a jurer. It is all good in theory but until you have participated, you will never understand. I stick to these same principles when looking at "evidence" ov the supernatural and alien visitation.

[edit on 8/6/2008 by AlienCarnage]

yep ive been on jury duty too and i can confidently say the ET hypothesis wouldn't win in any court anywhere right now.

reply to post by AlienCarnage


If the standard was beyond a shadow of a doubt, then the jail cells would be half empty.

Say you have evidence that says the crimal was seen by 5 eyewitnesses at the scene of the crime.

You then have the criminals mother saying that he was at home during the time of the crime.

There's no DNA evidence that says he was there but his alibi is his mother. The jury has to use reason to come to a conclusion.

If they say he was guilty, there's always a chance that his mother was telling the truth and the jury was mistaken. That's why some cases get overturned when new evidence is found.

A shadow of a doubt is not the standard. You can doubt that his mother is telling the truth and weigh that against the evidence of the 5 eyewitnesses.

reply to post by polomontana


This is all irrelevant anyway...Montana is sidetracking you once again.

The topic at hand is the existence of ETs, and that frankly has absolutely nothing to do with the court system. You can claim that you're not out to use scientific standards all you want to, but in the end it does not matter. That's EXACTLY what should and will be used by mankind when it comes to this topic. So if you'd rather sit there and say all along you've been talking about proof in regards to the legal system (in which case you're still wrong, but I have no desire to add 20 more pages trying to demonstrate what others are already doing), fine. Then everyone else can scratch their heads and marvel at your amazingly fluid interpretation of things.

I want to know why I've been asking the same questions now for more than 5 pages, and still you refuse to answer them.

They have nothing to do with proof, or scientific processes, or anything else of that nature.

They are directly related to your OP, and as the OP, I would think that you'd feel somewhat obligated to respond to them.

The questions are:

Montana: do you believe that skeptics are inherently biased against the possibility that UFOs are real?

Is there a reason why what we've said when trying to address this has been summarily ignored and rejected by you?

What would it take for you to trust that not all skeptics have a pre-existing belief and truly do simply require proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Is it possible?

Now, I want you to answer these questions here and now. And I don't want some sidetrack into the legal system or faulty comparisons regarding M-theory or any other nonsense from you.

Originally posted by polomontana
reply to post by AlienCarnage

 

If they say he was guilty, there's always a chance that his mother was telling the truth and the jury was mistaken. That's why some cases get overturned when new evidence is found.

. . . . and this proves my point, and disproves your half empty jail cells theory at the same time, but I am not going to further this argument and once agian let you suck me into to a further debate about this.

I still believe you would liken yourself to a jurnalist that does not need hard facts for a story, but that is my opinion and only have statemtns you posted in your thead as my proof.

reply to post by yeti101


Ufology would easily win in court just based on the preponderance of evidence.

It would take over a year to present the case for ufology with all the direct and circumstantial evidence.

Eyewitness testimony, mass sightings, abduction cases, trace evidence, videos, ancient manuscripts, cave paintings, paintings, pictures and more.

The parade of military officials, high ranking government officials, police officers, pilots, astronauts and more coming into the courtroom would be a sight to see.

Originally posted by polomontana
reply to post by yeti101

 

Eyewitness testimony, mass sightings, abduction cases, trace evidence, videos, ancient manuscripts, cave paintings, paintings, pictures and more.

The parade of military officials, high ranking government officials, police officers, pilots, astronauts and more coming into the courtroom would be a sight to see.

Most of which has already proven to be false, inaccurate or misinturpreted. Which is why no one dare present this evidence in a court setting, allowing just the media to present it, since the media standards are so low that they just want a "good story".

Sorry thrashee, allowed him to suck me in again.
Please read and answer thrashee's questions.

[edit on 8/6/2008 by AlienCarnage]

Originally posted by polomontana
The reason I have not replied to you or thrashee is because you keep repeating the same thing and asking questions that have been asked and answered.

You answered my questions about Voronezh? I don't think so.

Originally posted by polomontana
Now how many times have I said I'm not making a scientific argument? How many times have I mentioned that I was making a scientific argument? Zero.

Actually, you have made a scientific argument. You have said that the evidence in cases such as Voronezh, or Ruma or Dr. Lier can only point to one conclusion, that it is undeniable proof of extraterrestrial visitation. While you may not explicitly say "scientific," when you make such a claim, you are saying it is a scientific truth.

Originally posted by polomontana
You want to debate an issue that I never brought up, just like thrashee wants to debate about belief and opinion.

If you do not want to debate science and you do not want to debate belief and opinion, then what do you want to debate? Truth is, you do not want a debate at all.

Originally posted by polomontana
There's other ways that we come to know the truth outside of the scientific method. We come to know the truth through reason and investigation. We do it every in courts, police investigation and investigative journalism.

In courts and police investigation, you want evidence that brings you to a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt. We have tried to debate you on that, but you have refused. When we have demonstrated claims are falsifiable under your standards, you refuse to accept it, and refuse to explain why. You repeat your claim, as if the claim is evidence or proof enough, under any standard.

But we can play your game. I asked questions about Voronezh, based on your arguments. Please answer them. You won't.

Originally posted by polomontana
This is a pseudoskeptic tactic. You try and debate about everything except what was said.

Once again, you are talking about tactics and motivation. You have avoided answering questions. You want to discuss me, not the weight of your evidence (under any standards). Otherwise, you would not have avoided my questions about Voronezh.

Originally posted by polomontana
I'm not going to debate my argument on your terms. I never mentioned that I was making a scientific argument.

You are not going to debate on any terms. If someone challenges your conclusions, you say you are not going to debate based on whatever method or evidence they use. Presented with an argument or evidence that forces you to think, you move the goal-posts. You are simply not going to debate; you just want to discuss motivation, personality, and tactics.

Originally posted by thrashee
You can claim that you're not out to use scientific standards all you want to, but in the end it does not matter. That's EXACTLY what should and will be used by mankind when it comes to this topic. So if you'd rather sit there and say all along you've been talking about proof in regards to the legal system...

The reason he does not want (though unbeknownst to him he is*) to argue science is because of the three "investigative" methods he has discussed, science has the highest standard of evidence. Police-procedure is based on science, using evidence that is quantifiable, observable, measurable. Which I guess that means you have to throw out that standard of investigation, Polomontana. "Investigative journalism" has the lowest standard of evidence, and if often predicated on how many viewers it will draw in, how many magazines and newspapers it will sell. Rarely does investigative journalism makes a claim that conclusions are "undeniable."

(*Yes, when you make a claim that something is undeniable true, that is a scientific claim.)

reply to post by SaviorComplex


I have answered you and thrashee questions over and over again. The thing is, you don't like the answer so you keep asking the same questions.

You said,

"If you do not want to debate science and you do not want to debate belief and opinion, then what do you want to debate? Truth is, you do not want a debate at all."

All I'm debating is EVIDENCE.

Not the scientific method, not belief, not opinion.

In the Russia case, you have not given me evidence that suggest the eyewitness didn't see what they said they saw.

This is why you first have to come to the conclusion that extraterrestrial are a REASONABLE possibility like me and thrashee have.

This is based on the Preponderance of evidence and the credibility of the witnesses.

You then look at the evidence and say, there's x amount of reasonable possibilities and you include extra-terrestrials in that list of reasonable possibilities.

If you don't see extra-terrestrials as a reasonable possibility, then you will accept any possibility.

If you have evidence as to what they saw then present it. Not speculation but evidence.

The eyewitness are saying the same thing today both adults and children.
www.youtube.com...

I have come to the conclusion that extr-terrestrials are a reasonable possibility based on the preponderance of evidence. Therefore, the evidence shows that extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional beings exist beyond a reasonable doubt.

You want me to debate every possibility that provides no evidence to the underlying claim.

That's because you want to debate the scientific method, opinion and belief.

Originally posted by polomontana

I was just passing through and I saw this post.

This post has to be called the PSEUDOSKEPTIC manifesto. It has pseudoskepticism written all over it.

First he said, we have next to nothing to deduce from. You can't be serious. This is definately a pseudoskeptic claim.

Really? If we have a situation at some point when we know for certain (by scientific method) that alien life does exist, we have that one single thing we know. We couldn't possibly know anything more, as everything else would be guess work. Our problem in such a situation is that we would have ONE sample only, and that would be earth.

They can't admit that a reasonable person can look at sightings, mass sightings, trace evidence, abduction experiences, cave paintings, pictures, ancient manuscripts and video and come to the conclusion that these things exist.

It happens every day, I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is that people are trying to convert other people in their view of the world without having a common ground. I can see it all around. All you have to do is believe in alien life, and the next day you are freely allowed to give criticism in whatever way you want, as long as you believe.

This is why he said this is that he can get satisfaction from a social life. So everyone that accepts these things doesn't have a social life?

That wasn't fair, I admit that much. I was referring to a stereotype, which I should not have used. Sorry.

Pseudoskeptics have to talk in ABSOLUTES. If you notice on this thread you get alot of ABSOLUTE language.

UNDENIABLE PROOF
FULLY INVESTIGATED

You do realize that you have your opinions that in your point of view are also undeniable? Irony is a good thing but usually it is used for humor.

Do you know serious people have been studying these things for years? Do you know people can accept these things and still have a social life? Do you know people can accept these things and they are not willing to accept any fantastic claim? Do you know people can accept these things and they are not trying to fill a void in their lives?

This proves nothing. We can see an endless stream of history telling us how reasonable people were very wrong in whatever they believed. There are examples in both ways.

I have debated many skeptics who don't have to use these ABSOLUTE terms in order to debate. I have debated skeptics on these issues and they never used the terms fantasy, make believe or a fairytale.

Absolute terms? What is that supposed to mean? Take a dictionary and look at definitions. Words don't go beyond that if used properly. Terms generally have a definition. If you define something differently, you will first have to state how you define your term if you are expecting people to debate with you. You can't just change definition and then claim that you are right and everybody else is wrong. Its one of the most basic fallacies in logic.

It talked about how the psyche needed a polar opposite to religious fanaticism. Now you have material fanaticism. These people can't see passed the material because they thnk that if they do they are giving an inch to religious or metaphysical claims. Everything has to be explained within the confines of their material reality.

So, how do I know your psyche is not in need of polar opposite to materialistic fanaticism? Psyche needs it, that opposite, you know. Its because people tend to want more balance, there is nothing wrong with that.

I can see how a reasonable person can be a skeptic., the pseudoskeptic can't see how a reasonable person can accept these things.

I can see why and how, no problem in that either. Problems come when people simply refuse to understand why some evidence tells differently.

Originally posted by Corum


After the thousands of sightings and experiences in the world it just seems to unreal that there wouldn't be a single scrap of solid proof.

They're more intelligent than Humans, and they prove that with every "visit".

[edit on 6-8-2008 by Tomis_Nexis]

Originally posted by polomontana
I have answered you and thrashee questions over and over again. The thing is, you don't like the answer so you keep asking the same questions.

You have not answered the questions I raised about your evidence. I refer you back to this post, the one you are ignoring:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Answer those questions.

Originally posted by polomontana
In the Russia case, you have not given me evidence that suggest the eyewitness didn't see what they said they saw.

I did. But you refuse to acknowledge it. You dismiss it and then say I never presented the evidence. I refer you back to the above link.

Originally posted by polomontana
This is based on the Preponderance of evidence and the credibility of the witnesses.

But why? You have not told us why they are more credible than anyone else that has investigated the case and come to different conclusions. Instead, you did the very thing I asked you not to do. You make a declarative statement and then posted a YouTube video (your single piece of evidence. Do not lie to us and say you have other evidence.) again, as if that is explanation enough. I asked you not to do that. I asked you to explain why.

Again, I ask you...without making a single declarative statement, without posting your single piece of evidence. Tell us why this evidence is more credible and outweighs the evidence presented by the other UFO researchers, the University of Voronezh, the firefighters, the other eyewitnesses. Do not post the YouTube video again.

i]Do not post the YouTube video again. IT DOES NOT EXPLAIN WHY THOSE WITNESSES ARE MORE CREDIBLE THAN OTHER WITNESSES.

The reason you refer to the YouTube video, refuse to answer questions we have about, dismiss evidence and questions, then say you have answered them, is because as far as Voronezh is concerned, the YouTube video is all you have. When presented with questions that your YouTube video cannot answer, you refuse to acknowledge them. Please do not insult our intelligence and tell us you have researched the case. The evidence is clear that you have not. Otherwise, you would not constantly refer back to the video and dodge the questions presented.

[edit on 6-8-2008 by SaviorComplex]

Originally posted by polomontana
I think you need to turn to Cour TV or Nancy Grace.

Wait...wait...hang on a second. Did Polomontana use Nancy Grace as an example?

What the hell? Who in their right mind uses Nancy Grace as a good example of anything?

Are you actually trying to say, that since courts send people to jail because of reasonable proof, you are then going to get a few thousand people who have seen UFO or alien and claim that you are right? Because court system works like it? This is not a frigging court, this is a forum.

Since when have empirical truths been defined in court? Oh, I can already see it coming. It has happened before. Well, yes, and results are terrible for everybody.

Are you serious? You really want to use methods of court system to debate with people who want to get proof that passes scientific method?

I see you want to debate evidence, but yet you only allow a certain way of debate that you know you will win because you want it to use a method which is flawed in empirical sense. You also define empirical proof to belong into scientific method, right? That way you just define yourself out of any situation unless somebody understands what you are trying to do. We already did, and do.

Originally posted by thrashee
reply to post by polomontana

 

The questions are:

Montana: do you believe that skeptics are inherently biased against the possibility that UFOs are real?

Is there a reason why what we've said when trying to address this has been summarily ignored and rejected by you?

What would it take for you to trust that not all skeptics have a pre-existing belief and truly do simply require proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Is it possible?

Montana, have you answered these questions?

If so how many pages back, because I do not recall the answers to these qustions being given.

I m tired of your debating techniques that just end up going in circles. Even if you have answered these questions before, would it hurt to answer them one last time?

Polomontana,

I'm a 14,000 year old man from the Upper Paleolithic. As an exercise, let's debate that using your standards.

Montana, I am going back to the OT and answer your questions one more time.

You say that you know or think that extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional beings can't or don't exist, are you saying that the eyewitness to an event can't know these things either?

Of course they could in theory exist, just no hard evidence has yet surfaced to their existence. Eyewitnesses might believe these things to be true, but they can not be heald as hard evidence.

Are you limiting another person's sphere of knowledge based on your pre-existing belief on these issues?

No, they can believe what they wish, I would like people who state things to the general population to be able to back what they are trying to say, without quoting from an external source.

Example: If a high ranking government official comes out and says he has first hand knowledge that these things exist, do you limit what he/she can know based on your pre-existing belief on these issues?

Again, he can believe what he wishes, but if he wants to bring statements into the general populous he better be able to back his story with information relevant to his story in particular without quoting something from an external source outside of his story.

If a person you know to be credible comes to you and says they were visited by these beings and this person has never been known to make up stories, do you say these things could not have happened based on your personal belief about these issues? Are you saying that your friend couldn't know and experience these things based on what you believe?

Basically you will get the same answer from me again, they will need to back up these claims for me to believe them, but they are free to believe what they wish.

If so, how is this logical? Are you saying that nobody can know about these things because you believe these things don't or can't exist?

Like I say, they can believe what they want, but if they are going to bring forth claims to the general populous then they better have proof to back up their claims, without refering to external sources in order for me to believe.

If you are, then you are limiting others sphere of knowledge based on what you believe about these issues.

Like I said others are welcome to their own beliefs, but for me to believe them, I want hard proof.

Now could you go back and answer the questions that have been put forth to you?

reply to post by rawsom


Let me save you some time rawsom. Your making the same mistake as Complex and thrashee.

This will save you some unnecessary typing.

I HAVE SAID OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN THAT I'M NOT MAKING A SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT.

I didn't say, extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional beings are an empirical truth. This is what you want to debate.

You can't choose how I investigate things within ufology.

We use reason everyday in courts, police investigations, investigative journalism and reporting.

My claim that based on the preponderance of evidence extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional are a reasonable possibility and the evidence shows that extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional beings exist beyond a reasonable doubt.

Not based on opinion, belief, scientific method or empirical truth.

It's funny to see the pseudoskeptics desperately try to knock me off my square. This is because they can't debate these issues within the square of reason.

These things have to be outside the realm of reason so they can compare ufology to fantasy without any thinking or evaluation of the evidence.