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

Originally posted by polomontana
This is why I use the term pseudoskeptic because a skeptic doesn't speak in absolute terms. They speak in agnostic terms because they don't know and that's why their skeptical in the first place.

A pseudoskeptic speaks in absolutes and makes these sweeping generalizations.

My emphasis.

Is the above bolded not an absolute?

Quite the implicit contradiction.

Please refrain from labeling other members and speak to the topic.

reply to post by MemoryShock


No the above is not an absolute is an actual term. It's not a term that I made up out of thin air.

Pseudoskeptic

The term pseudoskepticism (or pseudoscepticism) denotes thinking that appears to be skeptical but is not. The term is most commonly encountered in the form popularised by Marcello Truzzi, where he defined pseudoskeptics as those who take "the negative rather than an agnostic position but still call themselves 'skeptics

en.wikipedia.org...

So now your job as a moderator is to limit my use of the english language because you may or may not agree with it?

I can't recall you banning the word pseudoscience.

I have no problem with the term pseudoscience when it's applied correctly.

You have had words like dense and dolt used on this board and you were nowhere to be found. Now your trying to ban the english language language because you don't agree with it?

You will just have to close this thread because your not going to stop me from using this term.

Is your job to be impartial or is it to be biased against terms you don't agree with?

Would you disagree if I were using the term skeptic? No, because you agree with that term.

I choose to seperate skepticism from pseudoskepticism and for you to try to stop my use of the term is silly.

Matter of fact, have you even looked at the context in which I used the term pseudoskepticism?

It was said that radars could be faked when it comes to u.f.o.'s and people who accept these things are living in a fantasy.

That's okay with you. But when I say their pseudoskeptics making sweeping generalizations in context with their post, then here you come.

Be a moderator, not a biased participant.

Originally posted by polomontana
No the above is not an absolute is an actual term. It's not a term that I made up out of thin air.

But you are using the term as an absolute by applying the generalization to other members. Period.

And it stops. You are using the term in a condescending fashion and repeatedly...we have had complaints.

As for being a biased participant, that is false. My only contributions to this thread are to moderate.

Do not go off topic again. If you have an issue, u2u me or file a complaint for all of staff.

Now...back on topic.

[edit on 22-8-2008 by MemoryShock]

Alien Carnage said

"Even though Beleivers are not the topic the following is also true if not slightly off topic.
There is no grand belief by believers, I believe this has also been proven time and time again in this thread.
Skeptics for the most part will back up other skeptics when the logic is good, but when it is not you can bet the other skeptics will let them know that as well. The same goes for believers."

This is truly pseudoskepticism at it's worst.

You say that people who accept these things are in the same boat as skeptics.

So now your trying to limit the sphere of knowledge of those who accepts these things.

You don't know and that's all you can say. You can't speak for those who accepts these things.

Pseudoskeptic.

Truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:

The tendency to deny, rather than doubt [4]
Double standards in the application of criticism [5]
The making of judgments without full inquiry [6]
Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate [7]
Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguments[8]
Pejorative labeling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.'[9]
Presenting insufficient evidence or proof [10]
Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof [11]
Making unsubstantiated counter-claims [12]
Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence [13]
Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it [14]

This would be number 12.

His claim that "believers" can't know these things is unsubstantiated. The only thing he can say is that he doesn't know these things.

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by SaviorComplex

 

yeah i think your right.

off topic but the one thing ive realised is im lucky to find the world & universe we live in fascinating enough without having to envoke anything imaginery. I feel a bit sorry for some folks who need to construct an imaginery world around them. For me reality is far more interesting than fantasy.

Again, pseudoskepticism at it's worst.

He feels sorry for folks who need to construct an imaginary world.

What a sweeping generalization of people who accepts these things.

Pseudoskeptic.

Truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:

The tendency to deny, rather than doubt [4]
Double standards in the application of criticism [5]
The making of judgments without full inquiry [6]
Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate [7]
Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguments[8]
Pejorative labeling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.'[9]
Presenting insufficient evidence or proof [10]
Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof [11]
Making unsubstantiated counter-claims [12]
Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence [13]
Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it [14]

This would be number 7 and 8.

He says pepole who accept these things is living in a fantasy world. What a sweeping generalization.

In case any one missed it, from earlier in the thread:

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
...I noticed Truzzi established several criteria to recognize a pseudoskeptic. I thought it would be a fun exercise to see how some of these apply to Polomontana.

The tendency to deny, rather than doubt

Originally posted by polomontana
First off you have not provided a shred of evidence.

Double standards in the application of criticism

Originally posted by polomontana
Pseudoskeptics also use science as a catch phrase when they don't have any argument.

And then you say...

Originally posted by polomontana
You would have to give me scientific evidence that the lighthouse can cause these effects...

The making of judgments without full inquiry

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by polomontana
The lighthouse light would have to been red.

It is red.* I provided this photo in my previous post.

Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguments

Pejorative labeling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.'

Originally posted by polomontana
Pseudoskeptics also use science as a catch phrase when they don't have any argument.

Presenting insufficient evidence or proof

Originally posted by polomontana
I GO BY THE TOTALITY OF THE EVIDENCE.

This is how you investigate something, you look at the totality of the evidence.

Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence

Originally posted by polomontana
If there is no terrestrial explanation for these things, what is the most logical explanation for mass sightings, sightings, pictures, video, trace evidence and abduction cases?

If I may, I hope this is not considered off topic, but has anyone noticed this phase at the top of this thread now.

This thread is an ATS Big-Thread with 1284 replies, and subject to more strict moderation.
Please stay focused. Stay on-topic. Minimal or off-topic posts and T&C violations are subject deletion and/or a warning.

This would most likely be the reason the Mods are starting to show up on this forum now.

The following was a quote from one of the moderators.

There will be no more namecalling. Period.

Please remain on topic and post to the topic and not the individual.

This was obviously not aimed at an individual but the whole of the participants in this thread.

Now I shall go back on topic:

The skeptical mind is needed on ATS in my opinion in order for the group as a whole to consider all sides of a situation and to not forget that you can not always take things at face value. As I have stated previously all the original questions posted are indeed answerable by a skeptic, but there are many thing that a skeptic can't answer. Skeptics will try scientific methods of approach to answer these questions. The true skeptic is not trying to disprove something, but instead trying to find the truth. I think I stated that somewhere before but I could be wrong.

reply to post by SaviorComplex


First you have not provided a shred of evidence. You showed that the lighthouse can be seen 6 miles away and then you showed us how sunlight beams through trees.

Secondly, I used science in the case of the lighthouse because a scientific experiment was conducted on your claim that the lighthouse light could have caused these things.

You can watch the experiment carried out by the skeptical scientist here:
www.youtube.com...

You then showed the lighthouse can look red in the distance. Okay and I accept that. I do things that you can't do because no matter how convoluted your arguments you have to keep following it no matter where it ends.

Okay, you were right. The lighthouse can look red in the distance. You see how easy it is to accept these things when you are seeking the truth.

Now will you also accept that the lighthouse light does not beam into the forest and at this time there's no evidence that the lighthouse light can do the things that Colonel Halt and his men described?

Nope, you will kweep showing us pictures of the sun beaming through trees because the pseudoskeptic has to be right and they can't say that I don't know.

Give us more pics of the sun complex.

Yes, you look at the totality of evidence and you don't look at evidence in isolation. If they did that in courts no one would get convicted, if they did that in police investigations nobody would get arrested, if they did that in journalism you might as well close down the printing press.

Again, you left out the part where I said, this is a hypothetical question.

If there's no terrestrial explanation for these things then what is the most logical explanations for sighting, abduction cases, trace evidence, pictures and video.

I have constantly said throughout this thread that I'm open to terrestrial explanations where there's evidence and you have provided none.

Go find some more pics of sunlight beaming through the trees.

Originally posted by AlienCarnage
Skeptics will try scientific methods of approach to answer these questions. The true skeptic is not trying to disprove something, but instead trying to find the truth.

In science, you try to disprove something as often as you try to prove something. There is nothing wrong with trying to disprove something, as long as you accept the results.

reply to post by AlienCarnage


What are you talking about?

Who said skeptics are not needed? Skepticism is fine and pseudoskepticism is not.

When you make sweeping generalizations or silly statements like the sunlight beaming through trees is evidence of something except the sunlight can beam through trees then that's pseudoskepticism.

When you say people who accept these things are living in a fantasy world that's pseudoskepticism.

When you say things have to be an empirical truth before you can reason about the evidence. That's your view and that's fine but that's pseudoskepticism.

Truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:

The tendency to deny, rather than doubt [4]
Double standards in the application of criticism [5]
The making of judgments without full inquiry [6]
Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate [7]
Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguments[8]
Pejorative labeling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.'[9]
Presenting insufficient evidence or proof [10]
Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof [11]
Making unsubstantiated counter-claims [12]
Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence [13]
Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it [14]

en.wikipedia.org...

Umm.. There IS a definition for pseudoskepticism, actually..

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.

I haven't seen much skepticism here without any logical proof, actually. It is not neccessary for a proof to be a piece of material or a photograph, for example. It would also be extremely stupid to require a photograph of an UFO not being whereever it was. Basic logic is quite often enough; admittedly though quite a lot of subjects get complex when hard sciences are taken in. Here comes empiric thought process again, which states that everything within empiric observation must neccessarily be true if not proven wrong by logic that comes from _earlier empirical process_.

It all comes down to the fact that people shouting this word have no idea what proof actually means. It can be a photograph, but a proof denying a photograph cannot really be a photograph unless somebody wants to prove manipulation of a photograph representing an egyptian hieroglyph. I wonder if some here get the hang of it with that example alone..

Then, there are other criteria defined. I will dismantle these one by one.

* The tendency to deny, rather than doubt [4]
This applies to so called believer. He will deny all evidence, rather than doubt.

* Double standards in the application of criticism [5]
Again, a believer usually has double standards as skeptics are required extraordinary accomplishments but for themselves believing is usually enough.

* The making of judgments without full inquiry [6]
Also applies to a believer. A single blurry photograph or a hearsay is enough to make judgements for them.

* Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate [7]
Like believers wouldn't discredit all logical conclusions without researching and investigating plausibility of facts inherited in logical conclusions.

* Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguments[8]
I think we have seen this before, no need to explain.

* Pejorative labeling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.'
Same thing except that they label us as pseudosceptics.

* Presenting insufficient evidence or proof [10]
This applies to almost every single believer in every single subject.

* Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof [11]
It does not, because criticism without a claim (See definition of pseudoskepticism) does not require proof. With a claim it does require it.

* Making unsubstantiated counter-claims [12]
This also applies to believers, we have all seen it.

* Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence [13]
This is what ufology is mostly about. Everybody knows that, even believers.

* Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it [14]
Basically, arguments against criticism by skeptics always inherit this one.


As you see, there is no innocent side for this. Shouting names just doesn't work, it makes no sense.

Now, do you or do you not want me to start campaigning that ALL believers belong into this pseudobeliever cathegory or do you, yourself, realize that most skeptics don't belong into this cathegory?

(edit: oh dear, I forgot my source: en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 22/8/08 by rawsom]

Originally posted by polomontana
Now will you also accept that the lighthouse light does not beam into the forest...

No. Because it does.

You yourself posted quotes from the eyewitnesses where they admitted they saw the lighthouse beam in the woods. I posted the quotes from the cops stating they saw the lighthouse.

This is what you said, Polomontana:

Originally posted by polomontana
There was then a silent explosion of light, causing the airmen to throw themselves to the ground in a defence. The object disappeared towards the coast and “was gone like a blur”. However, the three men began to follow a light that had appeared in the distance. Only after pursuing this for some minutes through the forest did they discover that they were chasing the glow from the lighthouse situated on Orford Ness...

That is what you said, Polomontana. Why are you denying it now?

Originally posted by polomontana
Give us more pics of the sun complex.

Do you know why I posted those pics, Polomontana?

reply to post by rawsom


Rawson,

Your whole post doesn't make any sense.

If you want to call believers pseudobelievers go ahead.

If you want to use the term pseudoscience, go ahead.

Just because you think these things apply to believers, doesn't mean they don't apply to pseudoskeptics.

I'm fine with stating your opinion, but it's not in context with what I claimed.

I said based on the evidence as reported and investigated extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional beings exist beyond a reasonable doubt. Then I listed 4 or 5 cases out of thousands and you can't supply any evidence that counters the evidence as reported and investigated.

You can throw out possibilities like pictures of sunlight beaming through trees but that's not evidence.

Show me in my claim where I talked about belief?

Originally posted by polomontana
First you have not provided a shred of evidence.

Um...just because you do not agree with the conclusions of my evidence, it does not mean I have not provided evidence.

Originally posted by polomontana
Secondly, I used science in the case of the lighthouse because a scientific experiment was conducted on your claim that the lighthouse light could have caused these things.

I never used the word "science" Polomontana. Why are you trying to debate things I never said. How about you debate what I said? I never said science, so you are not allowed to use science. You are not allowed to use science, Polomontana.

Originally posted by polomontana
Nope, you will kweep showing us pictures of the sun beaming through trees because the pseudoskeptic has to be right and they can't say that I don't know.

Did the mod tell you to stop calling people that?

Originally posted by polomontana
Just because you think these things apply to believers, doesn't mean they don't apply to pseudoskeptics.

Wow. You really do not read what any one writes, do you?

Originally posted by rawsom
As you see, there is no innocent side for this. Shouting names just doesn't work, it makes no sense.

Hey, looks like I found another rule of pseudoskepticism that applies to Polomontana!

Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it

Originally posted by polomontana
First you have not provided a shred of evidence.

Just because you are not convinced by the evidence, Polomontana, you cannot lie and say someone has not presented evidence.

This thread will get on topic.

Discuss the questions that UFO skeptics can't answer.

Any discussion of members or the staff will be deleted and the user warned.