Imagine A UFO Skeptic

Originally posted by grizzle2

Originally posted by atlasastro
You are not a skeptic, your are merely philosophically( dare I say religiously) over zealous.

Hardly. I've looked at the thousands upon thousands of videos and photographs of UFOs I've had the opportunity to see, and I've listened to or read the eyewitness testimony of thousands, and the testimony of credentialed people in the military and NASA that the government is hiding knowledge of extraterrestrial beings visiting our planet in space ships, and I choose not to dismiss all this out of hand or explain it by way of mental illness, hoaxes, weather phenomena, sightings of Venus, birds, airplanes, etc. How that makes me religiously over-zealous I can't say.

I don't think you are necessarily over-zealous, but what makes you think all people skeptical of specific sightings always dismiss all sightings out-of-hand, or believe every sighting has a mundane explanation. I have read about sightings on ATS that can easily be dismiss with a mundane explanation (Venus or bird), while there have been other sightings that can't be easily dismissed...

...however, even those sightings that can't easily be dismissed are not necessarily "real" just because there is no mundane explanation. Just because a UFO can't be proven to be something ordinary does not automatically make it an "alien-controlled craft".

Originally posted by m0r1artyI wouldn't be so bold as to put one forward.

I would merely state that an anecdote without any possible evidence to support it is exactly that; an anecdote.

-m0r

But that's not what is being discussed here. What I'm talking about would be the identifiable group calling themselves "skeptics", whose answer would certainly be to ascribe it to mental illness (delusion), etc. Eyewitness testimony by two credible witnesses is evidence, sufficient to send someone to the electric chair. If they had pictures or video, that would be dismissed as a hoax, or a photographic defect of some kind, or some aircraft or animal in combination with a camera malfunction, or the like.
What skeptics seem to require is that the occupants of UFOs gouge instruments out of their craft and chuck them in a highly populated area for all to see, or land or crash in a highly populated area. Or lots of them, just to make sure.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People what makes you think all people skeptical of specific sightings always dismiss all sightings out-of-hand

I never said that. I'm talking about an identifiable group of people who are called upon to represent the "anti" position when witnesses or researchers are invited to be on TV programs on the subject, and people who subscribe to those methods. They have publications and websites. And their tactics, which involve never admitting to the possibility of alien life visiting earth in craft.

reply to post by grizzle2


I would say that those who you claim to have been bandied together as skeptics are just indeed people who share a common belief (the same one which got us from fire to nuclear) and those who label this group as such are the ones making the mistake with their labeling.

I believe UFOs are aerial phenomena which can be explained as natural for the best part, and those which cannot be are man made and exist on a need to know basis from various military institutes.

My skepticism keeps a small gap in my belief to allow for the notion of them being ET in nature.

Do you understand?

I am a believer - a polar opposite believer to you.

I am a skeptic. My skepticism allows your belief to be considered as a possible reality.

What does your skepticism provide you with?

-m0r

Originally posted by grizzle2
Eyewitness testimony by two credible witnesses is evidence, sufficient to send someone to the electric chair.

Cite a single case in the modern Western legal system wherein eye-witness testimony alone sent someone to an electric chair.

Let me save you the trouble. You can't. Because eye-witness testimony alone has never been sufficient to have someone executed.

Citing the legal system is something that often comes up when certain believers want to bash skeptics, demonstrating they are just as ignorant of the legal system and standards of evidence as they are skepticism.

Originally posted by grizzle2
If they had pictures or video, that would be dismissed as a hoax, or a photographic defect of some kind, or some aircraft or animal in combination with a camera malfunction, or the like.

You seem more interested in attacking generalities than actually discussing specific cases. And again, that is understandable. Straw-men are easy targets.

Originally posted by grizzle2
What skeptics seem to require is that the occupants of UFOs gouge instruments out of their craft and chuck them in a highly populated area for all to see, or land or crash in a highly populated area. Or lots of them, just to make sure.

Yes, empirical, objective, inconvertible evidence is just terrible, isn't it? Science should never depend on it.

Originally posted by grizzle2
And of course skeptics will appropriate for themselves the right to define "extraordinary" on a case by case basis. Eyewitness testimony and photos or video are enough to send a man to his death, or countries to war.

You are talking about courts and politics, not science. The standards of evidence are far different. Again, you demonstrate just how ignorant you are of the legal system and standards of evidence.

Originally posted by grizzle2
Just because it's said by skeptics that these things are explained, it doesn't mean they are. Usually they just say "It's Venus" or swamp gas or whatever, and that's that. It's officially, forever, "debunked". Thus relying on appeal to authority, a logical fallacy.

It is only an appeal to authority if it relies on nothing other than the word of an authority figure and no other evidence.

Originally posted by grizzle2
I've seen this numerous times in debates between skeptics and witnesses / investigators.

Again, debating generalities and phantoms, not specifics. Much easier, I know.

Originally posted by grizzle2
If the military, having previously stated that there were no aircraft in the vicinity at that time, later flip-flops and says "Oh, yeah, we forgot, we had aircraft doing an exercise with flares just then and there.", that's good enough for skeptics.

No, that is not good enough for skeptics. It is only good enough if it fits with the other evidence.

Originally posted by grizzle2
Written out, the premise would go something like "If it could possibly, by any stretch of the imagination, be explainable by anything approved by scientific convention, then it is." Roughly the same as dismissing things out of hand, which is not even listed as a logical fallacy because it's too obvious.

No, it is not the same as dismissing something out of hand; that is called finding an explanation based on the evidence, based on what we know. You, on the other hand, want to use unknowns and special pleading to come up with an explanation.

Let's see... I can think critically and be skeptical whenever someone claims a tiny light in the sky is ET with an agenda, or I can just suspend all critical thinking and skeptism and nod my head with the rest of the true believers, because there's so many lights, one of them just has to be ET with an agenda, right?

I believe ETs very likely exist. I even believe it's highly possible that some sort of ET has been visiting us, maybe for years. Having said that, I don't reach for ET every time someone posts a video of a flashing light in the sky.

Sorry, the choice is clear. Hugely open mind with brain falling out? No thanks. Truth isn't strong opinions, big beliefs, or gut feelings.The world is full of BS and hoaxes. You want to believe every video of a light in the sky is a UFO, that's your business, but don't spit your venom and vitriol at people who aren't gullible enough to believe it and choose to suspend judgement until some real PROOF comes out. No tin foil for me, thanks.

Soon I'm just going to start making up my own negative sounding words to label groups of people. That way, whenever I get into an argument with one of them I can call them a TERRORIST or a MADCOWTF! Or whatever I want, I'm sure soon one of them will catch on and more and more people will be saying it, I can definitely come up with something better than "2nd line".

Originally posted by grizzle2

Originally posted by 35Foxtrot
All generalizations are wrong;

In addition, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

We can't get through the day without generalizations. Many generalizations are true most of the time.

And of course skeptics will appropriate for themselves the right to define "extraordinary" on a case by case basis. Eyewitness testimony and photos or video are enough to send a man to his death, or countries to war.

Oh for the love of God! Are you honestly attempting to claim that eyewitness testimony and videos of the quality UFO believers provide would be enough to send someone to prison?! I give up. I'm trying to be reasonable and you just come back with this utter nonsense. I'm outta here unless you can come up with something more reasonable/accurate.
And true generalizations are NEVER true. There is always the exception(s). And you accuse skeptics of being close-minded and quick to use less than honest attacks. Ugh!

I appropriate the right to define "extraordinary claims" when they are JUST THAT! Or would you argue UFOs do NOT require extraordinary proof. Man, you just don't get it. I feel like I'm talking to some 14 year old in his mom's basement.

This thread is stupid. It does nothing to further our understanding of the UFO phenomenon. What Grizzle fails to understand is that no matter how much he hates skeptics, it does not prove aliens are visiting the planet.

Originally posted by WingedBull
This thread is stupid. It does nothing to further our understanding of the UFO phenomenon. What Grizzle fails to understand is that no matter how much he hates skeptics, it does not prove aliens are visiting the planet.

edit on 16-4-2011 by WingedBull because: (no reason given)

But it helps people like him feel more comfortable with their own beliefs to have a scapegoat for why they've yet to receive vindication.

The only scientific evidence that is available is extremely sketchy and only furthers belief in people who already believe, and they all know that, so they attack the straw man of skepticism because it's easier than gathering real evidence. Especially considering it's unlikely there even is any real evidence to gather, since it's unlikely we're being visited at all.

Notice how often the argument comes up about how big the universe is, and how likely it is that life must exist elsewhere and so on? I see over and over and over again, yet every time it's tied into the argument that since aliens are probably out there somewhere, they must also be visiting here. It's another example of how ridiculous the logic is behind this theory and of the people who support it (keep in mind, I'm generalizing here, which means I'm wrong. I'm not saying these things about everyone, but as an overarching perception I've had of so many. There are exceptions to the rule, always).

Now, when I started lurking this site a few years ago, I was a heavy-handed believer in the phenomenon. What I realized as time went on, and as I got older and more wise to it, the more similarities I saw. Stripped of human emotion and anecdote, so much of the "evidence" that is presented here is complete rubbish. A dot in the sky is evidence of nothing other than that we've got dots in our skies. Like so many before have pointed out: Just because we can't identify what something is doesn't give us the right to identify it as whatever we want.

These forums turned me into the skeptic I am today. One thing I've noticed is that I'm not even as interested in the actual case studies that I used to be. I'm still interested of course, and I still browse, but considering the best we can ever end up with as "evidence" is that something is left completely unidentified and mysterious bores me. Without real evidence of aliens, we're stuck with just another "Ha-HAH skeptics, you can't disprove this light in the sky, so there!" Now I find the psychology behind it all incredibly fascinating instead. What makes people throw logic and reason out the window and just accept these claims? Why are they so vicious to people who want to know the truth instead of accept the belief?

It's all pretty interesting. Yes, I still want to know what's behind the UFO phenomenon, of course I do. But what's going on now (which I must assume has always been going on) with the attacks on skepticism and science just reminds me so much of blinded, cultish behavior, and it's incredible to watch. I'm not trying to insult anyone with these words, don't misunderstand. I'm stating my perceptions. This is what this all looks like to me, and my words and perceptions are just as flawed as anyone else's.

reply to post by WingedBull

Originally posted by WingedBull
This thread is stupid. It does nothing to further our understanding of the UFO phenomenon. What Grizzle fails to understand is that no matter how much he hates skeptics, it does not prove aliens are visiting the planet.

edit on 16-4-2011 by WingedBull because: (no reason given)

It is typical of religious zealotry to enact ones rage upon those others that are not accepting of your own belief, this results in attacking those that ask questions, or raise concerns or express doubt or even require more information in relation to the beliefs expressed. In other words, those that seem skeptical.

I agree that this thread adds nothing. It is merely an excersize in rhetoric aimed at destroying debate by debasing skepticism with cheap generalisations and assumptions.

Your post is spot on.

Why do ppl hate skeptics anyway?

Do the same people who hate them, walk around thinking that skeptics kill babies or launch puppies into lava or something?

All skeptics do is root out all the crap for you guys.

Originally posted by grizzle2
Yes, a presumption of infallibility, I have found that to be a quality of various skeptics.
They rely on various known logical fallacies, from dismissing things out of hand, to ad hominem attacks, to appeals to authority. And, yes, they do spend most of their time "proving negatives", trying to, though they run behind the idea that you can't when they get into trouble.
They don't say "maybe", they KNOW.

"YOU'RE A G**-D***** LIAR!" - UFO skeptic Philip Klass, yelling at an abductee on television

Not all skeptics are debunkers, but you're right most skeptics believe they already understand how most everything works and because of this believe they already have all the answers. It's not so much the skepticism that's bad, it's the underlying assumption that they're right. I don't know what to call that? Egoism? Whatever we decide to call it, it should be shot in the face.

reply to post by grizzle2

What is your point? A UFO skeptic behind an umpire? Well, he would get kicked off the field like anybody else. Explain a little more, I think.

reply to post by TripleSalCal

I am a believer because I have seen things I could not explain and almost close enough to have hit them with a thrown rock. However, you now want skeptics to prove UFO's do not exist? I submit that it is the claims of the believers, including me, which are extraordinary and therefore our burden to prove they do exist. Unfortunately, I have no proof of my sighting, not even the information of the other people who also were witnesses. Don't try to turn this around on people who don't have to prove a thing. It is already generally accepted that UFO's do not exist and until we can prove they do, that will remain the fact.

Think what you will. You see with your eyes, touch with your hand and hear with your ears, but you still have to Believe what your brain tells you. We still have no choice but to BELIEVE right at the root of it all. It makes us all one in the same. That standard is supposed to spark enlightening DEBATES. And skeptics have always been such bashers until the pass few years , because they get so frustrated, I certainly understand that. Just to be clear there is no such thing as a debate yet... We still all kind of argue to be honest, like there is something to defend like pride or intelligence? I thought we're supposed to be working together and collectively to achieve greater intelligence as a whole. Were still immature as a civilization to do that. Hell , at least we don't hang a man or arrest him for thinking there are things above our current understanding anymore !!! .... yeah... sorry Galileo.... couple hundred years late... I know.... But all in all don't dismiss what people take the time to chat about. And be easy on each other !!! Jeez.

Disclosure Project [2001]
www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by ChomeChum
Think what you will. You see with your eyes, touch with your hand and hear with your ears, but you still have to Believe what your brain tells you. We still have no choice but to BELIEVE right at the root of it all

Believe other peoples stories is what it is there my newly registered friend.

I trust my sense as I put them through their paces regularly. Many people make claims here and undermine themselves because of their lack of receiving what their senses tell them and pushing an agenda upon themselves that something unknown is somehow known, and classified sometimes, as ET.

That in itself is fine, but coming here and telling people what things are when they clearly haven't the foggiest is wrong.

-m0r