A question to sceptics.

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
Alright, Roswell, New Mexico and the subsequent 1952 (5 years later) introduction of the, until recently declassified, Silverbug project.

Ok. Counsel for the prosecution shall present the evidence and the bailiff shall mark it Exhibit A. What? There's a problem?

BTW, eyewitness testimony is most certainly circumstantial evidence. ESPECIALLY when combined with other evidence.

Nope.

circumstantial evidence: All evidence except eyewitness testimony.

source

There's nothing really to presume. Presuming gets us all in a bunch of trouble.

The simple fact of the matter is, scientific inquiry is hardly the same as judicial inquiry. They serve entirely different purposes. When was the last time a fact of the universe was proven to you by a court?

I'm merely interjecting now before this thread erroneously gets too far off-topic, as its assumptions are faulty to begin with.

reply to post by Phage


Damn, OWNED! haha!

I still conclude that eyewitness testimony definately CAN stand IN SUPPORT of other evidence, like exhibit A.

ok as for what a skeptic is my signature give that answer

Now alot of people are bring up science and how science relies on absolute proof which i find quite amusing when the majority of our science is theory not proof and alot of what our scientists know about space is theory so not many facts there ..

now dont get me wrong im not saying these UFOs are aliens but what i am pointing to is placing too much faith yes faith in science when historically its been consistantly wrong about some pretty big things.

Some are going to say well they didnt understand or have the technology we have now well back then those guys like now had the state of the art technology for their time, so whos to say in another 200 years they wont look back and say OMG cant you beleive they thought that

the majorit of past changes in theories and basic understandings have come from the fring aspects of the scientific community the "loony brigade" you know those guys who are underfunded but have some life cause

even Einstein was thought to be absolutly away with the faires for a very long time

so as my signature says be a skeptic but dont accept the most commonly given "theory" and that atm boys and girls is there is nothing going on in our skies ....

be what it may up there Alien Military or just some maniacle secret society trying to firghten all of us.
This isnt something just experienced by red necks who maybe had a bit to much moonshine anymore this is happening all over the world and has be for a very long time what it is hell i dont know that why im here

happy hunting all but please dont put rubber suits in freezers

[edit on 25-8-2008 by Amitsumikaboshi]

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
reply to post by Phage

 

Damn, OWNED! haha!

I still conclude that eyewitness testimony definately CAN stand IN SUPPORT of other evidence, like exhibit A.

Ok. I'll let you bring in witnesses if they are here to support exhibit A. What, still no exhibit A?

You see, circumstantial evidence, which is physical evidence, must be available to the court or it is not evidence at all. Without evidence in hand, there is no circumstantial evidence.

reply to post by thrashee


On a philisophical platform, scientific inquiry and judicial inquiry are precisely the same. Theoretical physics being the example. Scientist A says that so and so happens. (This is the plaintiff's position) Scientist B says no but Scientist A's mathematical model axiomly SEEM correct.
The problem is that, as we are seeing with the possibility of FTL travel is that axioms are meant to be broken.

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
reply to post by thrashee

 

On a philisophical platform, scientific inquiry and judicial inquiry are precisely the same. Theoretical physics being the example. Scientist A says that so and so happens. (This is the plaintiff's position) Scientist B says no but Scientist A's mathematical model axiomly SEEM correct.
The problem is that, as we are seeing with the possibility of FTL travel is that axioms are meant to be broken.

No no no, and I, for one, am tired of seeing scientific theory (especially theoretical physics) raped and manipulated in such a dishonest way.

Philosophically they are NOT the same. Science aims to describe reality based upon observations and experimentation. Even the most wildly exotic theories still hinge upon the utmost important experiments. No scientist worth his or her salt will proclaim a theory anything beyond just that (a theory) without experimentation.

The judicial system shares no such standard. It merely examines probable evidence and TESTIMONY, and leaves it up to a JURY to determine the truth.

The two are hardly the same, philosophically and practically speaking.

Originally posted by thrashee
When was the last time a fact of the universe was proven to you by a court?

when was the last time a fact of the universe was proven by science or unless i missed something we havent explored the whole universe to have enough evidence to make something a "universal" FACT

Maybe at the very far reach of theroy we know whats going on in our own little planitary system but then again we have realy worked out gravity yet have we so ...

i think the only time a court of laws going to even be brought into this fringe topic of UFO is when someone eventualy challenges the establishemnt once and for all to come clean about wtf people are seeing and what they are realy doing ....and that about a likely as likely as Labour winning th next genral election in the UK

damn quote thing messed up you get the point sorry

[edit on 25-8-2008 by Amitsumikaboshi]

Alright, now that this is moving into a more courtroom setting and I am going to have to actually PROVIDE the evidence I am speaking of (something that the original post asked assumed every well regarded skeptic had actually LOOKED AT THEMSELVES in order to maintain "skeptic status" I must take my leave.) You see, I plan on beginning another thread tonight and this was a test run. I wanted to see how the edit function worked (as I tend to rush ahead of myself hence the multiple edit earlier to reply to a posters points edit by edit). However, I WILL be back and the plaintiff will present a case, if that is what I must do.
This I promise. The evidence is overwhelming, IMO. And I will present it point by point in a single posting, if I must.

With Phage's consent I will sign off for now (of this topic) promising to return to this (if I don't get it I will stay here and inevitably stay up way too late until I post the other topic). THANKS for the replies guys, you probably wouldn't even understand how much it means to me that I can actually engage in somewhat of a discussion on these topics with obviously informed gents/ladies!

[edit on 25-8-2008 by Jay-in-AR]

Originally posted by thrashee

I'm merely interjecting now before this thread erroneously gets too far off-topic, as its assumptions are faulty to begin with.

Faulty assumptions or not. It is the thread topic. "Would you be worried...etc."

reply to post by Amitsumikaboshi


Fallacy. Whether science has proven as "fact" anything does not correlate to the fact that the judicial system and the scientific system are two entirely different fields.

reply to post by Jay-in-AR


And this is why the believers will absolutely eat this up, and everyone who actually carries the 8 pounds of weight in their head will simply shake it....

Your comparison is faulty. Period. In fact, I will submit as evidence that you know this the very fact that you chose to eschew the more stringent standard of science in favor of a judicial analogy. After all, only through the latter can your hearsay "evidence" be considered.

But go ahead pretending like you have a great point to prove here.

reply to post by thrashee


I guess until I get my consent from the major thread contributor of the moment will continue to contribute. The entire point is that theoretical physicists (aha! there is the plural! haha) INTERPRET the evidence they see to predict an outcome! This is no different than a jury being presented evidence in a courtroom. If they are doing their jobs, they are being presented said evidence by a supposed expert (albeit he biased or not and don't tell me that scientists aren't) and deducing their collective conclusion. Theoretical physics in a nutshell. Guess what, they are often wrong, but they are often right. Einstein was recently proven a damned genius with A. time dialation and B. speed constant. Meteorologists use this approach every day!

Originally posted by thrashee
reply to post by Amitsumikaboshi

 

Fallacy. Whether science has proven as "fact" anything does not correlate to the fact that the judicial system and the scientific system are two entirely different fields.

i agree they are different but dont use examples that are flawed nothing we know about the Universe is FACT science is kinda light on facts in that department and just because science cant explain it doesnt mean it doesnt exist again ill use gravity as an example

i think Science has to look into it but for it to do that the majority of science needs to let go of some of its feircly guarded basic physics principles untill then we wont get very far

so just to clariy i agree with you they are different just not on the how factual science can be

offtopic
i respect your opinion alot thrashee as you dont just smash peoples opnions at least your willing to discuss it

[edit on 25-8-2008 by Amitsumikaboshi]

[edit on 25-8-2008 by Amitsumikaboshi]

double post oopsy

[edit on 25-8-2008 by Amitsumikaboshi]

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
(something that the original post asked assumed every well regarded skeptic had actually LOOKED AT THEMSELVES in order to maintain "skeptic status" I must take my leave.)

I've looked at the available um...stuff presented as evidence. I don't accept it as constituting proof or even being unambiguous. Ok, maybe I'm not well regarded. In your next thread, be sure you provide reference to those well regarded skeptics who do.

You seem to agree that this topic doesn't belong in the courts (even though you tried to, it was your rules after all) and hopefully will never end up there.



[edit on 25-8-2008 by Phage]

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
I guess until I get my consent from the major thread contributor of the moment will continue to contribute. The entire point is that theoretical physicists (aha! there is the plural! haha) INTERPRET the evidence they see to predict an outcome! This is no different than a jury being presented evidence in a courtroom.

Wrong! And guess why (I've already mentioned it). Scientists attempt to falsify theories and subject them to experiments.

You and I both know the reason you're appealing to the judicial analogy is because it would be far more forgiving than science in proving alien existence. It's exactly why you're making the analogy in the first place.

I'm sorry, but you're just flatly....wrong. There is no amount of logical shell-games you can perform in attempts to make them equivalent. Do me a favor and go ask any judge or lawyer, or any scientist, whether they think their fields are the same. They're not.

Period.

I humbly beg you to reconsider opening yet another BS thread that is founded off fundamentally incorrect principles, only to get the usual flood of believers wetting their pants while the skeptics try to interject and insert some reason into the fray.

Think.

Think before you post.

EDIT--Go look at the "Questions that Skeptics can't answer" thread before you create a new one. I'm partly suspicious that you've already done so, based upon the nature of this OP, and the fact that the judicial analogy was falsely presented there as well.

Go read through the 1300+ posts before you think of creating yet another opportunity for bad thought.

[edit on 25-8-2008 by thrashee]

damn it thrashee i thought your where being more cuddlery skeptic as youve stated in other threads ive been involed in

but i do concur that the judicial analogy is wrong in this instace as the current theory of aliens in the UFOs



[edit on 25-8-2008 by Amitsumikaboshi]

reply to post by Amitsumikaboshi


I tried the cuddly approach and promptly got lynched by a "believer" who incorrectly assumed that meant I changed my stance. I'm back to the a-hole sparing nothing


EDIT--OP, if you'd like to open a new thread, feel free to do so. But allow me to predict exactly what will happen:

You'll have the usual wave of believers high-fiving and "right on"-ing each other, and you'll have the usual wave of skeptics (myself included) who will attempt to foil the party by bringing in logic and reason and reminding you over and over again how your OP was faulty from the start.

[edit on 25-8-2008 by thrashee]

No, I can't move on for now. I realize now that the attempt to keep me here by saying (paraphrasing) "no don't leave, I am trying to have a discussion" was that you found a weakness to an argument I was merely experimenting with. Well, you've got it. The other topic can wait, although I will preview it.... now.... "Transition into the information age, its difficulties and how God, the NWO and aliens all come together." Grow as a cohesive unit, united, or fall!!" We will discuss (if I can persuade your interest) the removal of the liberal arts from our public education system 150 years ago, the advent of television and modern psychology as the catalyst to the propaganda machine that is trying its hardest to fight against the intervention of the CPU age and the restoration of literally EVERYTHING that the removal of the liberal arts has done to corrupt. Why the NWO has been brought into the system, as a means to protect the industrial age grip on modern society... yadda yadda yadda"

Back to the topic at hand.. Give me a moment to access the recesses of my mind (as I have NEVER archived information on this box that I KNOW my former boss is watching) 30 minutes I ask.