Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies

reply to post by Indigo_Child

Yes Indigo, they want it to remain a mystery. Wanna know why?.. because in most cases with these types, it would shatter every other core belief they've ever had.. if they were to find out that ET's were actually visiting our planet, then that might negate their concept of God, or concept of importance in the universe, etc.. they would have to start rebuilding and reconsidering their entire belief system all over again. And that is understandably overwhelming.

Notice how they are especially opposed to the concept of people from other planets? .. do you notice that? .. it's a particularly challenging concept to one's belief system isn't it? .. what does it mean if there are others like us out there, and possess far more advanced technology?.. that takes away a very significant amount of our own self placed importance, doesn't it? .. this is the real reason they are opposed to the ET explanation specifically.

Now I know, there's gonna be someone who will use either one of two responses; they will either say that there is no evidence(proclamation), or they will ask where's the evidence?.. here is just a tiny bit of evidence okay..

USO Research

‘Alien Donuts’ In Space! Too Much Of A Coincidence To Be Debunked?

Definitive Back Engineered Alien Technology Research thread

The Smoking (Anti-Aircraft) Guns (of Los Angeles, 1942)

NASA STS-114 UFO Footage - Can it be debunked?

UFO Evidence

UFO Casebook

The Living Moon (Pegasus Research Consortium)

Mars Anomaly Research

This one is also pretty good;

REAL UFOs, best ufo news and videos


And here's one must watch UFO documentary;

UFO Coverup Documentary - Out Of The Blue Part 1/9

That's only part 1, you can watch the rest on YouTube


Not to forget, the notorious 'Disclosure Project';

UFO Alien Disclosure Project pt 1

I will bet that even will all this evidence(btw, lots more evidence), it will still be spat-at and denied. Let them remain in their bubble.

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
These arguments seem awfully simplistic. Irrefutable evidence about the properties of lifeforms, geophysics, etc. seems to be enough to bat away a majority of ET claims.

So. Your intent is to "bat away ET claims". Your intent is therefore to debunk rather than to consider things neutrally. And you beg the question about what evidence is "irrefutable". I'd suggest you might be the simplistic one here.

I'm not sure of the importance of labelling something as "possible." It's possible to make a hole to the other side of the Earth by dropping a ping pong ball.

Love to see you do that. It's a poorly chosen analogy.

The point is that we've been doing "proper" science for only a very short period of time. It's a part of the ETH "narrative" that many of our most recent breakthroughs have only come about due to attempts to back-engineer ET tech, and possibly even from their direct help.

Whichever, we're only at the beginnings of science. It's foolish to assume that technological progress cannot be made that would render interstellar travel possible.

What these arguments seem to miss is the bigger picture: is it necessary for ETs to exist? I think that there's a very simple answer: it may be necessary, to rally the people around a common foreigner, or "alien," if you will.

You're conflating two issues here. One is the purely scientific issue of whether or not ET life is necessary (I would say it's overwhelmingly probable, "necessary" implies some party or eventuality for whom it is nevessary) and the other is the political issue.

For example, my current model of what's going on with Disclosure is that, yes, there is a thawing - a recent UFO documentary in the MSM actually shifted the official USAF position to "yes, there are UGOs and we lie about them". It's crudely put but it is now the acknowledged Air Force position. However, the "fallback position" in the Disclosure game might be to say something like, "yes we lied about it because they are hostile and there wasn't anything we could do about it." This paves the way for all sorts of conflict.

When the government finally "discloses" its proof of ETs, you'd better take it with a grain of salt, just like how people took Osama bin-Laden.

Absolutely. But just because the government is lying about it and trying to fool us all, perhaps with some sort of staged event, it doesn't mean that the ETH is necessarily invalid.

Heike said,

No, he didn't. He's merely agreeing that there are objects which people have seen and couldn't identify. That's what "UFO" means, unidentified flying object - nothing more.

I don't think you understand what a hypothesis or the scientific method means.

Of course UFO's are unidentified and then we build theories and hypothesis to explain these things.

Just because it's unidentified doesn't mean we can't build a hypothesis to try and identify what it is. That's what science does. Empirical evidence is evidence based on observation and experience.

The problem is the pseudoskeptic and others want to remain in a perpetual state of constipated possiblility.

We always weigh the evidence within reason from the simplest thing to something more complex.

I can remember my mom and aunt talking about shopping and they "reasoned" that they should go to one store first because if they wen their last the store would most likely be out of the item they wanted.

A police officer, through reason, will piece together a crime scene and then they will report the most likely scenario that occured.

The pseudoskeptic doesn't want to weigh the evidence because they want to remain in a perpetual state of constipated possibility. This way they can keep these things unexplained and unidentified forever without weighing these things within reason.

A hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις /i΄poθesis/) consists either of a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon or of a reasoned proposal predicting a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena.
en.wikipedia.org...

The problem occurs because the pseudoskeptics doesn't use reason.

If you are not weighing the evidence within reason as to what's most likely and what's less likely, then your not being scientific. Your just trying to remain in the land of possibilities when those who support the ET hypothesis have already stipulated that there could be other explanations for these things.

Of course you can believe eywitness accounts after you examine the evidence and weigh the credibility of the witness.

The only way you can avoid this is if you exclude extra-terrestrials and extra-dimensional beings as being an explanation for these things.

Why wouldn't I do in ufology, what people do in all walks of life, weigh the credibility of the witness and weigh it within reason.




[edit on 25-3-2009 by platosallegory]

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Your argument is argument from faith and can be summed up as: "Well, I am not interested in what science or logic says, I am only interested in what I believe."

No. My argument is based on my experience of the world and my own successes and failures with logic, extrapolation, and problem solving in the past. My own 50+ years of experience is more real - and more important - to me than your scientific theories. Sorry about that.

Fair enough, but this is just your belief. You are not using any kind of valid inferences, you are just picking and choosing what you want to believe.

No. As I said above, I'm inferring and extrapolating from my own experiences and my knowledge base.

Right, but again all that is belief. None of this is scientifically valid. Your own response is no better than your ABC characters. You are also responding against ETH, because you don't like it, and not because you have any valid reason.

No, that's reality. That's how people are, that's how people think and feel and survive. Majorion's post above is saying the same thing in different words. Your abstract scientific principles apparently don't take into account the feelings and thoughts of human beings.

And .. one more time .. I'm not AGAINST the ETH. I don't dislike it. It is one valid possibility. There are, however, other possibilities that I consider equally likely. You don't, and that's your prerogative, but I'm not the one having a hissy fit about it - you are.

Originally posted by platosallegory
I don't think you understand what a hypothesis or the scientific method means.

Of course UFO's are unidentified and then we build theories and hypothesis to explain these things.

I don't think you understand what anyone is saying, not even yourself.

He said "UFOs are real" and then went on to specifically explain that he meant that unidentified flying objects are real. Just because they haven't been identified, doesn't mean they couldn't be identified with a bit more observation or analysis.

Admitting that UFOs, "objects in the sky which were not able to be identified at the time they were witnessed," are real in no way supports or proves the ETH.

Originally posted by rich23

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
These arguments seem awfully simplistic. Irrefutable evidence about the properties of lifeforms, geophysics, etc. seems to be enough to bat away a majority of ET claims.

So. Your intent is to "bat away ET claims". Your intent is therefore to debunk rather than to consider things neutrally.

What is there to consider? Blurry photographs? Star Wars videos? At the very least, you should actually identify a UFO before putting lipstick on it. Saying that "it's possible that ETs exist, therefore a UFO is an ET mode of transport" is not even logical. In addition, it assumes that UFOs are the only mode of transport for ETs, which is speculation.

And you beg the question about what evidence is "irrefutable". I'd suggest you might be the simplistic one here.

Personal attack

I'm not sure of the importance of labelling something as "possible." It's possible to make a hole to the other side of the Earth by dropping a ping pong ball.

Love to see you do that. It's a poorly chosen analogy.

Arguing from ignorance

The point is that we've been doing "proper" science for only a very short period of time. It's a part of the ETH "narrative" that many of our most recent breakthroughs have only come about due to attempts to back-engineer ET tech, and possibly even from their direct help.

Maybe there's a telegram of an ET explaining transistor radios?

Whichever, we're only at the beginnings of science. It's foolish to assume that technological progress cannot be made that would render interstellar travel possible.

Again, arguing from ignorance

What these arguments seem to miss is the bigger picture: is it necessary for ETs to exist? I think that there's a very simple answer: it may be necessary, to rally the people around a common foreigner, or "alien," if you will.

You're conflating two issues here. One is the purely scientific issue of whether or not ET life is necessary (I would say it's overwhelmingly probable, "necessary" implies some party or eventuality for whom it is nevessary) and the other is the political issue.

Exactly, so why is it necessary for UFOs to exist?

For example, my current model of what's going on with Disclosure is that, yes, there is a thawing - a recent UFO documentary in the MSM actually shifted the official USAF position to "yes, there are UGOs and we lie about them". It's crudely put but it is now the acknowledged Air Force position. However, the "fallback position" in the Disclosure game might be to say something like, "yes we lied about it because they are hostile and there wasn't anything we could do about it." This paves the way for all sorts of conflict.

So, ETs exist because the government is lying about it? That's affirming the consequent.

When the government finally "discloses" its proof of ETs, you'd better take it with a grain of salt, just like how people took Osama bin-Laden.

Absolutely. But just because the government is lying about it and trying to fool us all, perhaps with some sort of staged event, it doesn't mean that the ETH is necessarily invalid.

Contradiction

reply to post by Heike


Heike, do you understand the ET hypothesis is built on these sightings?

Of course there can be other explanations for these things but that doesn't mean you don't or can't build a hypothesis based on abduction cases, eyewitness avccounts, mass sightings and more.

Is that really that hard to understand?

Unidentified doesn't mean you can't build a hypothesis to try and identify what it is.

The only thing that's unidentified is the origin of what they saw, not that they saw it.

So you then build a hypothesis to explain what they saw.

Some people may think their extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional, some people may think it's military, some people may think it's time traveller's.

What's not disputed is that they saw these things and that's what you fail to realize.

If you have an explanation for these things then present it but trying to belittle the ET hypothesis is a waste of time because it's based in science.

Originally posted by platosallegory
Heike, do you understand the ET hypothesis is built on these sightings?

Plato, do you understand English??

Stating that there have really been "flying objects" which could not be identified by the people who saw them does NOT imply, support, or prove the ETH.

All he is saying is, "yes, people have seen things they couldn't identify." This means nothing.

Just because one person could not identify an object he saw in the sky does not mean that the object was not something quite mundane and ordinary which that particular person simply didn't have the experience or knowledge to identify, or that under different circumstances (day instead of night, different vantage point, etc.) that same person would not have been able to identify the object as something "ordinary."

He did not say "flying saucers are real" or "alien spacecraft are real." He said "Unidentified flying objects are real." This means nothing more than that people aren't always very good at identifying things they see in the sky.

reply to post by Heike


Well, your 50 years of experience which had lead you to admit the existence of underwground and underwater civilisations and spirit beings that fly around in the sky is unfortunately unfalsifiable for me. So I am going to reject it, but not reject your own right to believe in it. But it still is at the end of the day your belief. As long as you don't make any truth claims about your belief, you'll be safe with me



[edit on 26-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]

reply to post by Indigo_Child

Well, your 50 years of experience which had lead you to admit the existence of underwater and underwater civilisations and spirit beings that fly around in the sky

I don't "admit the existence" of any of those things, I merely am open to the possibility that any or all of them exist. I just consider all the possibilities, and I don't limit my possibilities according to what scientific theory says. There are more things in heaven and Earth ...

For one thing, this experience which happened to me some years ago can NOT be explained by the ETH, or any theory I can come up with except a dimensional portal. So maybe that's part of the reason I have a different point of view on it than you do.

I am not firmly convinced that ANY of the existing hypotheses are completely correct, but if you force me to choose one I'll pick extra-dimensional over extra-terrestrial.

reply to post by Heike


Wow, how can you not understand this?

This is how science works and you learn this in 7th grade science class.

Say an astronomer see's an anomaly in the sky. He will the verify he's seeing this anomaly along with others and then they will try to build theories to explain what they saw. They will then try to find ways to test these theories.

The same occurs with the ET hypothesis. People say they see spaceships, metallic crafts, motherships that move in ways that they have never seen before. This is coming from pilots, ex governors, high ranking government officials, police officers and more. You have sightings with trace evidence, implants removed, pictures, video, abduction cases and more.

From these things you build a hypothesis to explain what people saw.

Some say extra-terrestrials
Some say extra-dimensional beings
Some say the military
Some say time travellers

These are theories based on all of the things I have mentioned above.

What you are saying, doesn't make any sense.

It sounds like your saying, these things are unidentified and they have to remain unidentified.

You keep saying there unidentified but nobody has disputed that. So we can't build a hypothesis to try to identify what it is and weigh it within reason?

I hope that's not what your saying because that's truly illogical.

We always build up theories based on things we can't identify in all walks of life. These things don't have to remain unidentified.

A scientist will build up a theory based on a phenomena that they can't identify and that's why their building up a theory in the first place.

A police officer can't identify the criminal at the scene of the crime but they build up theories based on evidence to help identify the criminal.

Like I said, nobody claimed that the ET hypothesis was the only explanation and that there can't be other explanations to try to explain these things.

I still don't know what your debating. I think your trying to defend pseudoskeptics and support the creatures at the bottom of the sea at the same time and your all over the place.

reply to post by platosallegory


Having debated with you before .. several times .. I'm pretty sure you aren't really stupid. So I have to assume you're being deliberately obtuse.

Logicalresponse said

Are UFOs real? You bet. There are plenty cases of unidentified flying objects. But that first word is very important.

And you said

Right there you have validated the ET hypothesis.

Incorrect.

He did not say

UFOs are alien spaceships, or UFOs are flying saucers, or alien spaceships are real, or flying saucers are real.

He said UFOs are real.

OF COURSE UFOs are real. Anyone who knows anything at all about the subject can not claim anything else without lying, because even the worst of the government-sponsored investigations intended to promote disinformation had to leave a few cases "unexplained" - i.e. unidentified.

So "UFOs are not real" would be a lie unless you knew NOTHING about the subject. Obviously there are objects which have (so far) not been identified. It says so right there in the report.

However, saying "UFOs are real" does NOT admit that they are unidentifiable, it merely admits they have not yet been identified. With more evidence one of them might have been able to be identified because it was a new type of airplane, or a flock of geese, or Venus.

You can say "UFOs are all just ordinary things that weren't recognized." But you can't say "UFOs don't exist, or "UFOs aren't real" without lying (or being woefully ignorant) because it is a FACT that some UFO cases remain unidentified.

Or you could say "some UFOS might be alien spaceships" or even "all UFOs are alien spaceships." THAT would be validating the ETH.

Please tell me you really aren't so dumb that you can't GET this concept. Admitting that there are objects which could not be identified when witnessed does not admit that any of them were, or could have been, alien spaceships. Therefore it does not validate the ETH.

If an uncontacted tribesman in Africa sees a helicopter, it's a UFO since he doesn't know what a helicopter is. But does that make it an alien spaceship? Obviously not!

If I see a new stealth plane and don't know what it is, it's a UFO until or unless someone who knows what it is enlightens me. But that doesn't make it an alien spaceship in the meantime.

these things are unidentified and they have to remain unidentified.

No. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the statement "UFOs are real" means nothing more than there was at least one case where an object was not able to be identified during or after the sighting. Does that mean it was truly something that is not able to be identified by humans? No. With a better picture or a more educated witness, it might have been identified. But since we can't go back in time and get a better picture or a different witness, that one particular sighting must remain a "UFO" even though it may have actually been a plane, or a helicopter, or a balloon. That was the ONLY thing Logicalresponse was admitting when he said "Are UFOs real? You bet." He was NOT admitting the possibility that any UFOs are alien spaceships, as you incorrectly inferred.

reply to post by Heike


You constantly debate things that were never claimed.

He saud, UFO's are real.

I said he just validated the ET hypothesis.

Obviously you stopped reading the post right there because I want on to explain why I said this.

I said he validates the hypothesis because it's built on observed and experienced phenomena.

The observed phenomena is that people are seeing things that they can't identify but they still describe what they saw.

I didn't say he confirmed that extraterrestrial exist but he validated the hypothesis.

If you would have kept reading the post, you would have read this.

I don't "admit the existence" of any of those things, I merely am open to the possibility that any or all of them exist. I just consider all the possibilities, and I don't limit my possibilities according to what scientific theory says. There are more things in heaven and Earth ...

You know what I think about the argument from possibility.

For one thing, this experience which happened to me some years ago can NOT be explained by the ETH, or any theory I can come up with except a dimensional portal. So maybe that's part of the reason I have a different point of view on it than you do.

I am not firmly convinced that ANY of the existing hypotheses are completely correct, but if you force me to choose one I'll pick extra-dimensional over extra-terrestrial.

The above experience has nothing to do with UFO's. It is interesting, definitely suggests something. I do actually believe in other planes of reality and logic should no problem with it, because the realm of mind and the realm of matter are different, therefore there is another plane definitely. The word dimension is a misnomer, there instead exists levels or planes. But this does not mean that discarnate beings from other planes or levels can enter our plane, there is no logical evidence to support this.

One has to take recourse to something like string theory to explain the existence of other dimensions, they are not at all apparent in our observable world and there is no inference that can establish them. Also remember, string theory is still only mathematical. To understand other dimensions one needs to leave empirical logic, and look at something like quantum logic. In a quantum logical system it could be argued that if the cat in the box is found to be dead in one universe, it is alive in another universe. That a parallell universe will exist for every outcome. However, nobody really understand quantum logic, so quantum logic predicates cannot be generalised to emprical reality.

Don't get me wrong. I do not limit my understanding of reality to only what empirical science tells me, but I am careful enough to understand that in a rational world I must only accept what can be known by valid means such as perception and inference. There is no perception and no inference that can establish parallel dimensions.

A general set of arguments has appeared in the course of this discussion which is strongly being supported by the opponents of the ETH(I will not use the word skeptic, or pseudoskeptic to remain neutral) I am going to assume the best intentions of my opponent and assume that they are misguided, and are not pseudoskeptics. However, even if after they retain the position, then that label is going to fall automatically because it defines very much what a pseudoskeptic is.

Argument: There is no evidence of ET or UFO: testimonial evidence, radar reports evidence, photographic and video evidence, anecdotal evidence, non peer-reviewed scientific evidence is not evidence.

Rebuttal:

What's left?

This is a null hypothesis fallacy. A null hypothesis in this context is basically when one creates an arbitrary condition on what is and what isn't allowed in their worldview. In the null hypothesis of orthodox Christianity, Jesus is the the only way to god, no other way can be accepted; in orthodox Islam, the difference between god and man is infinite and absolute, man is forever his slave, anything that negates this cannot be accepted. In the null hypothesis of the early Church, the Earth is flat and the sun goes around the Earth, anything that is contrary cannot be accepted.

I am piling on the religious analogies to show that a null-hyothesis is not at all rooted in rationality, but in a quasi-religious sentiment. This is why in rational logic it is a fallacy. In rational logic, any kind of selection of what is possible and what isn't possible is invalid. Anything is logically possible, so as long there are no contradictions. The advent of rational logical thinking has informed scientific research for centuries. The aim has been to make research as objective as possible, collecting all information on ones research topic that is possible(professional research is vigorous and long-term) and then it is only when one comes to interpret the data that an element of subjectivty is introduced(but there are restraints present here as well to to prevent complete subjectivity)

The null-hypothesis fallacy that is being commited here is scientific dogmatism. The difference between scientific dogmatism and the science itself, is that in scientific dogmatism, people selects what they wants to include and not include in their worldview. This leads to all kinds of politics and power games in the scientific dogma world.

1) Some research is rejected as unnecessary, such research is often called "pseudoscience": ufology, parapsychology, hypnosis, NLP Metaphysics. In the past even the social sciences were considered "pseudoscience", and strong scientific dogmatists still consider them so.

2) Some experiments are rejected as anamolus. Some experiments such as say experiments which show that a particle can travel faster than speed of light, that fusion reactions can be brought about at room temperature, that instant information can take place, that over-unity energy is possible are rejected because they do not fit into the worldview. They will be dismissed as "hoaxes, faulty experiments, freak-accidents"

But the purpose of the scientific method is to actually find falsifications, once found, to adjust ones hypothesis or even reject it. Thus the scientific dogmatic position is one contrary to the principles of Science. Simply put, it is like the Church of Science.

There are arguments that exist to justify scientific dogmatism. They are protectionist and paternal arguments, the scientfific dogmatist sees themselves as a parent, crusader and vanguard of science, to protect it from chalartans and bad scientists. They argue, "We need checks and balances in place to ensure scientific accuracy and honesty", and will then give valid examples of scientists that have actually hoaxed results, performed bad experiments to validate this position. Actually it is invalid, it a slipper slope fallacy, just become some researchers are bad, does not mean all researchers are bad. It is similar to the argument of the Church of "false prophets" which they attempt to validate by giving examples of prophets who are demonstrably false, but this does not mean all prophets are false, only some are.

The scientific dogmatist, like the early Church takes advantage of the problem of inaccuracy and dishonesty, and then self-appoints itself as a moral authority that protects science. This is why Scientific dogmatism is not a respectable position today and its association with authentic science is firmly severed. Scientific dogmatism is today recognised as another belief system and not as a part of science. An example of a scientific dogmatist is Richard Dawkins and James Randi. They attract great cult followings by pretending to be vanguards of science, when in fact they are actually trying to be religious leaders and make fallacious appeals to science like many religions today.

In conclusion: The argument is completely invalid. All of the UFO/ET evidence outlined is valid evidence, and by failing to engage the evidence at all one is commiting to the extremes of pseudoskepticism. It is not honest, it is not respectable and it certainly isn't scientific.

[edit on 26-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by platosallegory

 

You constantly debate things that were never claimed.

No, I don't. I am a fighter and have won several debates, so I think I know how to debate. You keep changing the meaning of what you've said to suit your latest strategy.

Debating you is like trying to catch a greased pig. Every time I think I have it, it slides out of my grasp and goes off in a different direction.

Obviously you stopped reading the post right there because I want on to explain why I said this.

I said he validates the hypothesis because it's built on observed and experienced phenomena.

Nope, I read the whole thing. More than once, in fact. And you are still wrong.

The observed phenomena is that people are seeing things that they can't identify but they still describe what they saw.

And this has exactly WHAT to do with the ETH?

Let's say I'm at my local mall and I see a thing fly over the likes of which I've never seen before. I can't identify it. It's a UFO.

Then a guy walks up next to me and says "Oh, that's the new F432 Advanced Supersneak Fighter." Cool. It's no longer a UFO. It has been identified.

Now suppose the air force guy wasn't there. I won't be able to identify what that was, and my description of it isn't good enough for anyone else to figure out what it was.

It must now forever remain a UFO because the "sighting" is over, there is no way to get more evidence, and the available evidence (my lousy description) doesn't permit it to be identified.

So there you go, a real UFO which will never be identified. None of which changes the fact that it was actually a human military aircraft that I couldn't identify.

So, UFOs being real has WHAT to do with the ETH? Exactly nothing.

"UFOs are real" just means that a lot of people aren't very good at identifying things they see in the sky.

You are confusing the difference between cases which have been thoroughly investigated and are inexplicable without applying an unproven hypothesis such as ETH, and cases where perfectly normal things like birds, celestial bodies, and aircraft were not correctly identified by the witness(es) and therefore remain UFOs.

LogicalResponse was not admitting to the former, he was only admitting the latter, that people have seen things they couldn't identify, and couldn't provide sufficient evidence (photo, good description, etc.) for anyone else to be able to conclusively identify it. In those cases, the statement that "UFOs are real" means only that some people are too ignorant to identify unusual planes, bird formations, satellites, and other perfectly ordinary things which appear in the sky.

The UFO cases in which the object couldn't be identified because they are truly something not human and not natural are something totally different and are not what he was referring to.

Do you GET it yet? I hope so, because I'm running out of different ways to explain it. IF you aren't just deliberately stringing me along for the "fun" of it, don't ever go on that "are you smarter than a 5th grader" show - you'd lose for sure.



Hey, how about this:

I challenge you to a formal debate, in the debate forum, according to regular default debate rules (which you can read in the first post of any debate, like the one I have in my sig about internet censorship).

The topic is:

The statement "UFOs are real" validates the extraterrestrial hypothesis.

You are pro, I'm con.

If you won't accept my challenge, then get over it and move on. I think you understand perfectly well what I'm trying to say and keep pretending you don't for some perverse sort of amusement you're getting out of this.


[edit on 26-3-2009 by Heike]

I must mention it:
Several of indigo childs examples are just plain and utterly wrong.

There used to be a theory that flight is impossible? If there ever was it most certainly was falsified pretty soon. Because, you know, birds do it, bees do it ... even rocks do it wich is actually quite handy if your neighbour caveman becomes pesky

We have observed gravity only on the moon and earth? Well... we did send probes to every planet in the solar system (except pluto but as we all know that isn't one) and used their gravity to orbit them. So, yes we have observed (the effects of) gravity of jupiter. and saturn. and neptune, and uranus and venus and mercury, and mars, and the sun, and about a few billion other suns and a couple of 100 planets.

We can't observe X-rays? Of course we can! if we need tools or not to observe something is irrelevant! observe != see with eyes.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
This is a null hypothesis fallacy.

There is no such thing. Maybe you mean the fallacy of the null-hypothesis significance test.

There used to be a theory that flight is impossible? If there ever was it most certainly was falsified pretty soon. Because, you know, birds do it, bees do it ... even rocks do it wich is actually quite handy if your neighbour caveman becomes pesky

Actually it was strongly believed by many scientists that flight in the sense of heavy flying machines actually flying would be impossible. They would have argued that birds, bees are light enough to fly.

We have observed gravity only on the moon and earth? Well... we did send probes to every planet in the solar system (except pluto but as we all know that isn't one) and used their gravity to orbit them. So, yes we have observed (the effects of) gravity of jupiter. and saturn. and neptune, and uranus and venus and mercury, and mars, and the sun, and about a few billion other suns and a couple of 100 planets.

We can't observe X-rays? Of course we can! if we need tools or not to observe something is irrelevant! observe != see with eyes.

Although I think your correction is valid on the examples given, it does not overcome the argument. An ordinary person who has no equipment at his disposal such as an x-ray detector or a spacecraft and a satellite cannot detect gravity on jupiter or x rays. This was the case 100 years ago. There are many things that we cannot detect or observe today either with modern equipment, this is what an unobservable universe is.

We can only make generalizations from particulars if we think there a relationship of invariable concomitance. We think there is a relationship of invariable concomitance between mass and gravity, smoke and fire, space and time and based on those generals any instance in the universe of mass, smoke and space becomes subject to our generals. Likewise, we think there is a relationship of invariable concomitance between planet Earth and life. If we can observe an instance of an earth-like-planet, then just like we would infer gravity from mass, fire from smoke and time from space, we must infer life on the planet.

If I asked you another question, does time flow fowards or backwards on a random planet in the universe, you would probably say it is forwards, genearalizing from your observations from time here. It's a valid inference to make; likewise inferring life on other planets like Earth is a valid inference to make.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
A null hypothesis is basically when one creates an arbitrary condition on what is and what isn't allowed in their worldview.

Try to educate yourself first about the concept of null hypothesis, then you can accuse imaginary opponents of using it against you.

Wow. I'm actually commenting on this. When will I learn?

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Actually it was strongly believed by many scientists that flight in the sense of heavy flying machines actually flying would be impossible. They would have argued that birds, bees are light enough to fly.

No. It was argued that powered flight is impossible, because of the weight/power ratio of steam machines, the best available at the time.