Why "sceptic" claims there is no evidence don't hold water

I hope im not the only one who tends to believe someones story or account with out the need to ask for proof or evidence. Im one who tends to think positive before the negative. I have no reason to suspect anyone is lieing and in that same stance that doesnt mean that I will follow that person. Anyone can tell me a lie or give me the truth, in the end niether the truth nor the lie will affect me. I wont gain anything in the process and I wont lose anything. This may sound stupid, and it just may be, but in the end the only one that loses anything is the one that demands proof or evidence. Anyways good post, but I think one had already started about this very topic!


Peace!

I am sorry, but I think this is why the world is going insane.
I also think they speak of the truth... My oppinion..

Off topic this, but it might be the reason for all the wierdness that is heppening around the world...
Lets not forget....

Parallel information from National Security Council scientist Dr. Michael Wolf , a member of the NSC's SSG subcommittee for managing the UFO phenomenon,
as well as from noted author and Vatican expert Father Malachi Martin, suggests that the Vatican is concerned that it will have a major doctrinal updating
situation on its hands when extraterrestrial contact becomes authoritatively announced by world governments over the next several years.

AND:

According to Tina SETI is receiving and concealing regular explicit signals (and has been doing so for at least seven years)
from this race that state that they are returning to earth in around four years (2013) and have spacecraft essentially mid-journey.
The extra-terrestrials will land openly and in a way that will conclusively prove their presence and are doing so unilaterally.

They have given the US government until then to prepare humanity for this event.

I am just saying !!! 8)

And ofcourse this makes no sence if you havent read both articles or are unable to think about two topics at the same time. All the wierd stuff leads up to one event... Cant be nothing else. Im running out on ideas on why things are getting 'screwed up' on purpose intfront of our eyes ....

And I am telling you that I do not agree. That is not how I collect my data.

I see, so you don't use perception to form knowledge of the world? You never make inferences? You never use analogy? You never use testimony?

How do you get any kind of knowledge then?

Do you have an objection to that?

p.s. do you have any links/data to back up your info on the Indians 'logicians' et al?

Come on, I am sure you are smart enough to do a search on "Indian logic"
The info I have gathered is from studying Indian logic and reading countless books and journal articles on it(Many available on JSTOR btw)

Don't expect to be spoon-fed.

[edit on 31-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]

reply to post by Indigo_Child


How a human collects knowledge is not known for certain. We can theorise but we do not know for sure and that being the case I remain open to suggestions but subscribe to none.

Perception, inference, analogy and testimony are all flawed and may or not be some of the ways or the only way to collect knowledge. You think you know. I know I don't.

Maybe the above differs from person to person.

How do you account for that?

Where does the soul/spirit/astral body fit in?

Maybe I use my gut instinct - where does that fit in.

Maybe I use something to form knowledge that nobody else uses.

You think you know how people think and that is fine. I just don't know and I just don't agree with you.

You claimed that the Indian logicians were aware of the problems with their 'means of knowledge' piece and that they had workarounds. This is quite specific and should be very easy for you to provide evidence.

Do not forget that you are the one who is making the claim about what the Indian logicians believed, said and taught and are therefore responsible in providing the evidence when asked for it.

[edit on 31/3/2009 by skibtz]

How a human collects knowledge is not known. We can theorise but we do not know for sure and that being the case I remain open to suggestions but subscribe to none.

Actually it is known, only how knowledge happens is not known. They are two different philosophical problems.

You did not know anything about Indian logic prior to me telling you about it, now you do. You have learned about something called 'Indian logic' through testimony.

Perception, inference, analogy and testimony are all flawed and may or not be the only way to collect knowledge. You think you know. I know I don't.

Again, I said that these are problematic, but they are the only means of knowing that we have. If there is another means of collecting knowledge, please tell me.

Where does the soul/spirit/astral body fit in?

Maybe I use my gut instinct - where does that fit in.

Maybe I use something to form knowledge that nobody else uses.

You think you know how people think and that is fine. I just don't know and I just don't agree with you.

You are asking logician's about where an astral bodies fit in?
Well most logicians will say that such an entity does not exist, and they would be right because there is no empirical knowledge of such a thing. Indian logicians however, do admit the category of the soul, and give very extensive arguments on the existence of the soul.

Soul-knowledge also comes into the category of perception. It is called special perception or yogic perception. The modern equivalent would be ESP.

You claimed that the Indian logicians were aware of the problems with their 'means of knowledge' piece and that they had workarounds. This is quite specific and should be very easy for you to provide evidence.

Do not forget that you are the one who is making the claim about what the Indian logicians believed, said and taught and are therefore responsible in providing the evidence when asked for it

I am not claiming, I am informing you. Indian logic is not a controversial issue, it is established knowledge. There are hundreds of books, dozens of academic publications. Just do a search on "Indian logic" geez. If I said the earth goes around the sun, would you expect me to produce pages of mathematical and astronomical data? Stop being lazy and do a search on "Indian logic" if you want to find out. I am not going to spoon-feed you.

reply to post by Malcram

So you are really just restating that eyewitness testimony is invalid despite the fact that it is a cornerstone of our legal system.

I think you'll find that most guilty people who end up in the dock who get off on technicality do so because the individuals statement given in court differs from that taken at the time of the crime. Ask any police officer. They are not interested in eye witness accounts days after the event. They may ask for them in things like traffic accidents, etc, but that is just to see if they tally with the eye witness accounts taken immediately after the accident. That is why I take with a pinch of salt the information given by so-called whisteblowers who come forward decades later telling of their personal UFO encounter. They most probably did have a very interesting sighting but their memories of it will have been tainted and blurred by the passing years.

reply to post by Mintwithahole.


Right, memory is not a reliable form of evidence, but it is not invalid. Yes, my memory on what happened 5 days ago maybe nebulous, but I certainly do remember certain key events in my life. Some things we remember more than others, especially if they are extraordinary. Seeing a UFO or an alien is extraordinary, and such an event would be pretty much seared into my memory. I am likely never to forget such a thing for my entire life, while something minor like what I had for dinner 2 days ago I won't remember.

Anyway a lot of UFO witness testimony is usually based on a very fresh event and not on recall years later.



[edit on 31-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]

reply to post by ChemBreather


Considering Martin died 10 years ago and Wolf 9, makes you wonder what kind of time frame "several years" is.

reply to post by Indigo_Child

Seeing a UFO or an alien is extraordinary, and such an event would be pretty much seared into my memory.

It would! And you would tell everyone you know about it, each time the retelling being ever so slightly different from the last. The last thing you did at night would be to go over this amazing event and then while you slept your imagination would alter key points, add biased details while removing anything not of interest from your recollection of the event. It wouldn't take very long for what actually happened, and your account of what happened, to differ hugely. Charles Holt of Rendlesham fame was giving his account of that event on the Strange But True UFO Debate, and his story differed hugely from what he had written down at the time. He had sizes and place names all wrong.
Don't you remember those people some years ago who swore that they had been abused by satanic cults? There was dozens of witnesses and yet when checked not a single one held water.
Relying on your memory alone is extremely dodgy.
Like you, the police and I say, the earlier you can get your experience down on paper, tape recorder, etc, the better.

reply to post by Indigo_Child


Sorry i prefer Aristotelian logic. It demands proof and makes more sence to me. Back to thread now please. If the existence of UFO is to be proved eye witness testimony is only a small part. It can be used to support other facts but cannot stand up by itself as the only fact.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Actually it is known, only how knowledge happens is not known. They are two different philosophical problems.

For anything to be truly known in our 4-D existence it would require knowledge of how and why that space exists, IMO.

For all we know Bill and Bob could be operating a Giant Machine of Knowledge in the N-th dimension.

It may be the case that we do have a soul/spirit/astral body that is used to collate and store knowledge. It may be the case that our spirit/soul/astral body is pre-loaded with knowledge.

You did not know anything about Indian logic prior to me telling you about it, now you do. You have learned about something called 'Indian logic' through testimony.

Here you go again. Telling people what they do or do not know. Do you realise how you come across when you do that?

Again, I said that these are problematic, but they are the only means of knowing that we have. If there is another means of collecting knowledge, please tell me.

Apparently they are not problematic because you know all the answers.

And as I have stated, I do not, and do not pretend to, know how we collect knowlege, if indeed it is collected.

Well most logicians will say that such an entity does not exist, and they would be right because there is no empirical knowledge of such a thing. Indian logicians however, do admit the category of the soul, and give very extensive arguments on the existence of the soul.

So if I told you that I used to practice astral projection successfully and that my soul did indeed leave my body, what would you say to that?

Your logicians would be wrong and so would you Indigo Child.

Stop being lazy and do a search on "Indian logic" if you want to find out. I am not going to spoon-feed you.

You informed me that Indian logicians questioned their own system that explains how knowledge was collected. I asked you to show me where I can follow this up.

The fact that you are not being kind enough to point me in the right direction, instead leaving me to trawl 'hundreds' of books et al, says it all really.

[edit on 31/3/2009 by skibtz]

Click here for more information.

Removed post as it was an off topic response to the above post

[edit on 31/3/2009 by skibtz]

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by Indigo_Child

 

Sorry i prefer Aristotelian logic. It demands proof and makes more sence to me. Back to thread now please. If the existence of UFO is to be proved eye witness testimony is only a small part. It can be used to support other facts but cannot stand up by itself as the only fact.

Aristotelian logic is actually based on Indian logic. In fact pretty much all of the pre-socratic and Platonic philosophy is based on Indian Philosophy.
I recommend you read a book called, "Shape of Ancient Thought" an outstanding and scholarly work with 40 years of research into Indo-Greek thought and development.

Anyway it sounds like your knowledge of both Indian logic and Artistoltian logic is lacking. Aristolelian logic is not proof, an introductory guide on logic will show this. The premises in an aristotelian syllogism are arbitrary, not real, and thus the conclusion can still be valid. This is why there are two logical properties: validity and soundness. The following is valid:

All men are mortal
Here is a man
He is mortal

All philosophers enjoy poetry
Here is a philosopher
He enjoys poetry

The foundational premise is arbitrary, it is certainly not proof. There is no proof that all philosophers enjoy poetry. Nor is there proof that all men are mortal(it is logically possible that some men are immortal). The proof of a premise cannot be proven by an argument itself, it is just assumed to be true. Thus the logical property of soundness is based on proving that the premises are true, but as such proof is never conclusive, no arguments are ever proven.

The Indian syllogism is more sophisticated in that it takes a scientific approach using the hypothetical syllogism(if p then q) it accepts that there are no absolute relationships of invariable concomitance, only ones that can be known through ones observable universe using valid means of knowing. So, while Aristotlian logic is based on imaginary entities and cannot generalise to the real world, Indian logic is based on observable entities and can be generalised to the real world. Thus Indian logic is a scientific logical system, whereas Aristotle is more of a mathematical logical system. They both have have their own strengths and weaknesses.

However, Indian logic also has a mathematical logical division. Indian logic is quite complex and has many traditions. The logic of relativity from Jain logic, deductive or mathematical logic of Buddhist logic, and scientific logic from Hindu logic.

Now as I am pretty sure most of that went over your head, lets get back to the UFO discussion The point I brought up Indian logic, because of its scientifical logical system, is that testimony is a valid means of knowing. It maybe problematic, but there are ways of refining it. In Indian logic testimony only from an apti(expert source) was considered valid, but it did not necessarily deny testimony from ordinary people.

[edit on 31-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]

[edit on 31-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]

reply to post by skibtz


Sorry if I came across as rude, but what do you expect if you can't even do a simple google search on "Indian logic" and read about it yourself. What you are asking me to do is trawl through my Indian logic books to find the section where they discuss inadequacies of the means of knowing, just so I can show you they said that. That's like asking me to trawl through books on mathematics and astronomy to justify my claim the earth goes around the sun. What the Indian logicians said is not a claim, it is common and established knowledge to all students of Indian Logic and Indian Philosophy.

I am not going to go trawling through books for you sorry. Read about it in your own time. Anyway, I think I said this before, but I will spell it out clearer for you. Indian logicians do not recognise perception, inference, analogy and testimony as evidence itself, but as means of evidence. Here is a classic example how an Indian logician would approach a problem using a lampost and a man.

According to Indian logic, all logical inquiries begin from doubt. It defines doubt as having conflicting knowledge on something. So suppose you see from an object from a distance that looks like a friend, but you cannot quite decide if it is your friend or a lamp post(conficting perception) Indian logic would then use set-logic to determine the characteristics of the object you are seeing and eliminate contradictory possibilities "If the object is moving, it cannot be a lamp post, because lamp posts cannot move, therefore the object is a person" Then as the person approaches, you notice the person is short, therefore it is none of your tall frends. As more and more data becomes available you can draw a conclusion on who it is.

Likewise one uses inference and testimony in the same way. You refine the data collected by either of the valid means of knowing by falsifying contradictory hypothesis.

The Indian logiciains also define of invalid means of knowing. They are defined as tradition, presumption and others.

In the context of how an Indian logician would approach a UFO. They would begin by first acknowledging that there is doubt on what the UFO is. They would then look at all possible hypothesis(is it a bird, is it a plane, is venus) and falisfy all hypothesis which produce contradictory data, until only one hypothesis remains which is consistent with every bit of data.

So you see a UFO and the characteristics are as following:

It is luminous
It moving very fast and changing direction very fast
It is very large
It is causing EMF effects

Then using the Indian logical system(which really is just standard scientific logic) we will falisfy all hypothesis that do not fit. It's not a bird, it's not planet venus, it's not a plane. It is obviously a physical craft, but it does not belong to any known human craft, therefore it is a non human-craft.

Impeccable logic.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Sorry...

Apology accepted

I am not going to go trawling through books for you...

I did not imagine you would. I assumed (doh!) that this conflict that the Indian logicians had documented could be quite a big topic with it's own title and chapter and one that you could reference for me quite quickly, especially as your knowledge on the subject is at least average.

Back to our discussion: Perception, inference, analogy and testimony

I do not think that these provide knowledge. I would accept that they could be used to collect and maybe sort data into information but knowledge is something else altogether. Knowledge, IMO, is far more than stating I saw this and it done that. Knowledge, IMO, would need to explain how or why the object moved and by whom. Perception, inference, analogy and testimony do not provde this, IMO.

In the context of how an Indian logician would approach a UFO. They would begin by first acknowledging that there is doubt on what the UFO is. They would then look at all possible hypothesis(is it a bird, is it a plane, is venus) and falisfy all hypothesis which produce contradictory data, until only one hypothesis remains which is consistent with every bit of data.

Could you break this down and explain using perception, inference, analogy and testimony.

So you see a UFO and the characteristics are as following:

It is luminous
It moving very fast and changing direction very fast
It is very large
It is causing EMF effects

Then using the Indian logical system(which really is just standard scientific logic) we will falisfy all hypothesis that do not fit. It's not a bird, it's not planet venus, it's not a plane. It is obviously a physical craft, but it does not belong to any known human craft, therefore it is a non human-craft.

Impeccable logic.

Impeccable?

At what point do you impeccably demostrate that 'it does not belong to any known human craft'?

How do you come to the conclusion that the craft is extraterrestrial?

How logical is it to assume that the craft was designed, created and piloted across light-years to navigate it's way around our planet?

How is that more logical/probable than the craft being terrestrial-based exotic technology that the public is totally unaware of?

[edit on 31/3/2009 by skibtz]

I just lost my post to you(Damn!) so I am re-writing it!

I am not going to go trawling through books for you...

I did not imagine you would.

I assumed (doh!) that this conflict that the Indian logicians had documented could be quite a big topic with it's own title and chapter and one that you could reference for me quite quickly, especially as your knowledge on the subject is at least average.

I did a google search on "Indian logic" and I came across two good articles for an introduction into Indian logic, one is from wiki and the other is an academic Indian logic forum. They have quite a bit of information for an introdution into Indian logic. In any case I think you mistook what was meant by the means of knowing(perception, inference etc) it was not said that that they are identical with evidence, only that they are means of collecting evidence. After, the Indian logicians would use vigorous reasoning to ascertain its validity. They also had identified many formal and informal fallacies. If you are interested you should read up on the debates that occured in the tradition, they are very analytical and precise.

I do not think that these provide knowledge. I would accept that they could be used to collect and maybe sort data into information but knowledge is something else altogether. Knowledge, IMO, is far more than stating I saw this and it done that. Knowledge, IMO, would need to explain how or why the object moved and by whom. Perception, inference, analogy and testimony do not provde this, IMO.

Again I think you misunderstood what I said. They are two philosophical problems: One is a scientific problem on what is the best method for collecting data and the other is epistemological, how does knowledge occurr. The Indian logicians are concerned with the scientific problem on how data is collected. How knowledge happens is treated in another branch of Indian logic, which treats of epistemology. Particularly neo-Indian logic. Epistemology is treated more vigorously in the Yoga schools both Hindu and Buddhist.

Could you break this down and explain using perception, inference, analogy and testimony.

In this two means of knowledge are involved. The first is perception(the observation of the UFO) and the second is inference(the process of ascertaining what it is)

Impeccable?

At what point do you impeccably demostrate that 'it does not belong to any known human craft'?

It happens during the inference stage. When you falsify all possible hypothesis, for example: bird, planet venus, star, moon etc, then you are left with the hypothesis that it is a physical craft. Then when you falsify all known human physical craft: Aeroplane, fighter yet, weather balloon, glider you are left with the conclusion it is an unknown-physical craft. This unknown physical craft is exhibiting technology beyond any known human craft and breaking human laws of physics. Hence it is not a human craft.

How do you come to the conclusion that the craft is extraterrestrial

How logical is it to assume that the craft was designed, created and piloted across light-years to navigate it's way around our planet?

It is very logical. Perception shows us that life on a planet is a known phenomenon in the observable universe, and because we have no reason to believe life cannot happen again, it follows that ET must exist. If ET exists, because they are a part of an unobservable universe(unobserved culture, science and technology) none of our limits apply to them. Thus the ETH hypothesis is a valid one.

How is that more logical/probable than the craft being terrestrial-based exotic technology that the public is totally unaware of

It is more logical and probable because it does not multiply quantities, it explains all the available data(collected through perception) consistently. It is possible that it is an exotic secret human technology, but it is also possible that it isn't. Thus argument from possibility alone cannot establish anything.

[edit on 31-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
I just lost my post to you(Damn!) so I am re-writing it!

There is very little more annoying than losing a post you just typed out

Again I think you misunderstood what I said. They are two philosophical problems: One is a scientific problem on what is the best method for collecting data and the other is epistemological, how does knowledge occurr.

I am aware of the difference between collecting data, transposing the data to information and then using information to formulate knowledge.

However, you said:

The Indian classical logical system accepts four means of knowing, mirroring our actual epistemological ways:

1) Percerption: ...

2) Inference: ...

3) Analogy: ...

4) Testimony: ...

These are the means or methods of knowing that we are using all the time in life and each one is a valid means of knowing.

And:

These are all means of knowing

And:

I see, so you don't use perception to form knowledge of the world? You never make inferences? You never use analogy? You never use testimony?

How do you get any kind of knowledge then?

Bearing in mind the above, I was under the impression that we were talking about knowledge - whether it is the knowledge of knowing 'that' or the knowledge of knowing 'how' is irrelevant at this point. You are talking about knowledge - not data or information.

Unless of course you are talking about another type of knowledge - which is totally acceptable considering knowledge is a highly conterntious subject and is not universally accepted under one definition.

Or may be knowing and knowledge are two different things?

I don't mind if they are but it would help if you explained yourself a little better as I am clearly having difficulty understanding what you are trying to say.

It happens during the inference stage. When you falsify all possible hypothesis, for example: bird, planet venus, star, moon etc, then you are left with the hypothesis that it is a physical craft. Then when you falsify all known human physical craft: Aeroplane, fighter yet, weather balloon, glider you are left with the conclusion it is an unknown-physical craft. This unknown physical craft is exhibiting technology beyond any known human craft and breaking human laws of physics. Hence it is not a human craft.

And so because a person, group or study does not have knowledge of non-ET craft that could explain the sighting, you think that it is reasonable to decide that the craft is ET?

It's fine if you do, I'm just not comfortable making that call for definite.

It is very logical. Perception shows us that life on a planet is a known phenomenon in the observable universe, and because we have no reason to believe life cannot happen again, it follows that ET must exist. If ET exists, because they are a part of an unobservable universe(unobserved culture, science and technology) none of our limits apply to them. Thus the ETH hypothesis is a valid one.

I do believe that there is other life in the universe - the numbers are just too staggeringly high for the situation to be otherwise. I have no problem with that.

However, is there evidence that they are visting us? Yes.

Do you or I believe any of it? I think you do, which is great btw, but I am not convinced yet.

It is more logical and probable because it does not multiply quantities

But it does multiply quatities does it not?

Man exists. ET exists.

Man inhabits Earth. ET does not inhabit Earth.

In order to facilitate the ETH, you now have to include ETs creating UFO technology and then traveling through potentially dangerous distances/spaces in order to be included here. That would be multiplying quantities right?

Man flies machines in Earth's atmosphere. ET flies machines Earth's atmosphere.

Edit: BTW, I do not know what multiplying quantities means exactly so I took a punt on it's definition - hope it's close!

[edit on 31/3/2009 by skibtz]

I don't mind if they are but it would help if you explained yourself a little better as I am clearly having difficulty understanding what you are trying to say.

I have already clarified many times above. Perception, inference, analogy and testimony are valid means of knowing, but they are not evidence in and of themselves, they need to be refined vigorously before you can have valid knowledge.

There is a difference between knowing and knowledge itself. How knowledge happens is a cognitive matter and is discussed in in other parts of Indian logic and in the psychology schools, such as Yoga.

And so because a person, group or study does not have knowledge of non-ET craft that could explain the sighting, you think that it is reasonable to decide that the craft is ET?

It's fine if you do, I'm just not comfortable making that call for definite.

It's not just the case that it is an unknown craft. It is the case that it an unknown technology which negates our own laws of physics. Therefore it belongs to somebody with a different laws of physics. Sure, you can speculate that it experimental top-secret technology, but speculation does not establish anything, it is only an argument from possibility. In scientific logic we can only work with the observable universe.

For the record I do believe many UFO's are top secret terrestrial technology.

However, is there evidence that they are visting us? Yes.

Do you or I believe any of it? I think you do, which is great btw, but I am not convinced yet.

UFO's are the evidence that ET is visiting us. In addition alien abduction cases are evidence as well. I do not treat this like a mystery, a mystery is only something one can't explain, but I can explain UFO's.

There is a reason why the government allows open discussion on UFO's and government cover up, because they know that nobody can prove it, even if there is an infinite amount of evidence. But that is a fallacy itself because nothing can ever be proven, not even the most supported scientific experiments around. People have been made to think that that proof is synonymous with evidence, and that is why you hear people saying, "There is no evidence" all the time. The truth for these people ET will not exist until he lands in their backyard. It's a disinformation strategy and I'm not falling it.

But it does multiply quatities does it not?

Man exists. ET exists.

Man inhabits Earth. ET does not inhabit Earth.

Nope, because ET is just a generalization from the particular of life on Earth. It is consistent with scientific logic which generalises from particular observables.

In order to facilitate the ETH, you now have to include ETs creating UFO technology and then traveling through potentially dangerous distances/spaces in order to be included here. That would be multiplying quantities right?

Man flies machines in Earth's atmosphere. ET flies machines Earth's atmosphere.

Edit: BTW, I do not know what multiplying quantities means exactly so I took a punt on it's definition - hope it's close!

:up

Nope still there is no quantity multplication. In fact there would be a quantity multiplcation if we insisted that Man's science is the same as ET's science. We cannot apply the limits of our observable science to ET's unobservable science. It would like be like 18th century scientists applying their science's limits on 21st century science.

[edit on 31-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by dragonridr

 

If the existence of UFO is to be proved eye witness testimony is only a small part. It can be used to support other facts but cannot stand up by itself as the only fact.

No one said it did. And no one ever claimed that this evidence, or any evidence was flawless and did not need careful scrutiny (as within the legal system). In fact, every time eyewitness testimony is mentioned as being valid we have stated that it must be examined along with other evidence. Yet, every time we say this you or someone else tried to dismiss witness testimony. Now you say it is valid but needs to be supported by other evidence - which is all that we suggested in the first place. If you agree, why argue when we say that witness testimony is a valid form of evidence and must be considered along with the full range of evidence?

OK, so we have that settled now? Witness testimony is valid as a form of evidence with regard to the UFO phenomenon and must be considered along with the rest of the evidence.

[edit on 31-3-2009 by Malcram]