Why is the skeptics OPINION given any weight?

Originally posted by Quaesitor
I was hoping most of us could agree that something is going on, without assigning any origin to it, and take it from there, but, apparently, even the placeholder name we use to refer to the phenomenon is cause for strong disagreement.

Not everybody uses the placeholder name UFO, but those who don't still acknowledge how it's been used historically. The historical usage hasn't stopped NARCAP from adopting more modern terminology.

NARCAP

National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena

"To improve aviation safety and enhance scientific knowledge"

Note: Historically, no distinction has been made between unidentified lights that may represent poorly documented natural phenomena and alleged reports of unidentified objects. The result is that all reports of UAP are lumped into a common, though inaccurate, category - UFO. This was one of the reasons that NARCAP adopted the broader term of UAP or Unidentified Aerial Phenomena. However, many historical references use the term "UFO" and we are faced with including them while emphasizing the more correct term "UAP" from our modern perspective.

Case in point, this is not a flying object, but it fit Sagan's description perfectly that people saw, or in this case filmed something in the sky they didn't know how to explain (though eventually someone explained this particular film).

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d6554174e811.png[/atsimg]
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by neoholographic
Who decides what's an extraordinary claim?

It is the basis for all of science.

What is extraordinary evidence? Why isn't the evidence enough? Is there some scientific measure of extraordinary evidence?

An extraordinary claim is any claim that changes our understanding of the universe we live in.

Extraordinary evidence would be any evidence that strongly supports such a claim, evidence that could not be interpreted any other way than supporting your claim.


Say, for instance, you wish to claim that the moon is made of green Swiss cheese. As we currently understand the composition of the moon, this would be an extraordinary claim. Your evidence could not be interpreted as supporting any other conclusion. For instance, you could not use the fact that the moon appears to have holes in it as supporting your claim the moon is made of Swiss cheese, as we know those "holes" are craters caused by meteors.

Originally posted by neoholographic
Is saying we live in a holographic universe and extraordinary claim? Is saying that parallel universes exist an extraordinary claim? Is saying the universe is a quantum computer an extraordinary claim?

Yes, those are all still extraordinary claims, as we have no unequivocal evidence to support them yet. Parallel universes and the like may actually exist, but we still don't know for sure. Any claim that they are real is extraordinary (as would be any claim they are not real) and would require very strong evidence, evidence that could not convincingly be used to draw any other conclusion.

Originally posted by neoholographic
The fact is none of these are extraordinary claims based on knowledge we have in 2012.

Yes, they are. Because we still don't know for sure.

Originally posted by neoholographic
It's the same with saying based on the available evidence, extraterrestrials exist.

Actually, it is still an extraordinary claim.

While the idea that aliens exist is certainly not extraordinary by any means, as we expect to find life beyond our planet one day, we still have no solid, measurable, testable evidence for it. In regards to being a scientific reality, any claim of extraterrestrial life would still require evidence to support it.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by neoholographic
I have said time and again that being a skeptic is fine but using skepticism to mask your closed minded belief systems isn't fine.

Then please stop calling those people sceptics, as they are not and you keep on joining those fake sceptics with the real ones, making the real ones look like fake.

He won't, because he thinks that all skeptics behave as such.

With all due respect, a two tiered system would only foster ignorance and lies on both sides of the fence to run rampant. The dissemination of information from across the nations serves as a meeting place for the exchanging of ideas. Some ideas will be advanced, others will not, sadly. But to sit there and say that whatever idea put forth in the original post should be accepted hands down and not questioned? My friends, that is just ludicrous. Also, if I could make a minor complaint, this whole compartmentalizing (i.e.- sceptics, pseudo-sceptics,) really just grinds my gears, and for some reason, sounds cliquish to me.

Originally posted by neoholographic
Psychic ability may be an extraordinary claim to the person writing the article but it's not to me.

You may choose to believe it, but your choice to believe does not make something a scientific reality. As it is not a scientific reality, any such claim (any claim, paranormal or not) it is still an extraordinary claim (as it would change our understanding of the universe) and would require extraordinary evidence (evidence that could not support another conclusion).

Originally posted by neoholographic
A few weeks ago I was debating the topic" Do we live in a Simulation." Not once did anyone say this was an extraordinary claim and that we need extraordinary evidence.

Actually, if you were debating it and there was an opposing view, then while no one may have used the exact words "extraordinary," that someone took a different view means the claim of reality being a simulation was extraordinary and required extraordinary evidence to convince otherwise.

Originally posted by neoholographic
Why can't skeptics accept the subjective nature of their opinions? I can accept the subjective nature of my conclusion...

But you are not making a subjective claim. Science is not subjective, it is objective. In claiming that extraterrestrials exist and are visiting our planet, you are making a scientific claim. Saying, "The Green Lantern is a good comic book" is a subjective claim, though I would agree with you, because you are making an unmeasureable claim about your personal opinion. However, "Extraterrestrials are visiting the Earth" is not a subjective claim. You are making an claim about the objective nature of the universe that should be measurable.

Originally posted by neoholographic
and I can respect someone who has come to a different conclusion. A closed minded believer masquerading as a skeptic can't accept this because they're fueled by belief not an open mind searching for the truth.

If you are calling someone a closed-minded liar, you are not respecting them.

Originally posted by DJW001
.... Jacques Vallee and J. Allen Hynek are perhaps the two most notable UFO researchers of all time. They have studied more reports between them, and submitted them to more rigorous analysis than probably all other researchers combined. Neither of them has advocated the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis. What evidence has your own research turned up that would contradict their conclusions?

To say that "neither of [Vallee or Hynek] has advocated the extraterrestrial hypothesis" is a little misleading, don't you think? And I don't mean this in a critical way. (Really!) Yours is a sentence that is accurate in a sense -- neither of those two individuals aggressively advocated "yes, this is the UFO answer: extraterrestrials!" -- but your statement may gloss over the fact that each has aggressively advocated that, in some instances, the ETH does seem to be the most probable explanation.

Vallee goes even farther than the ETH, to say that there are probably many strange and un-earthly explanations for UFOs, and that he would be surprised (and in a way disappointed) if extraterrestrial vehicles were found to be the most incredible of those.

Hynek was more reserved, of course, always hedging (as any scientist knows to do), but I think his message is loud and clear if one reads "The UFO Experience": a core of UFO cases clearly are not just hoaxes or misidentifications, and though we can't prove the ETH, the ETH must not only remain a valid hypothesis, but is, by elimination, seemingly the the most likely. So we get things like the following: after a discussion of the "craft" witnessed by pilots and radar operators in some of the best radar-visual cases (pp.106-110), he won't come right out and say "ET is the answer", but he will say

"Probabilities, of course, can never prove a thing. When, how­ever, in the course of UFO investigations one encounters many cases, each having a fairly high probability that 'a genuinely new empirical observation' was involved, the probability that a new phenomenon was not observed becomes very small, and it gets smaller still as the number of cases increases. The chances, then, that something really new is involved are very great, and any gambler given such odds would not hesitate for a moment to place a large bet."

.... and from the context he's clearly not talking about weather or astronomical phenomena there, so... what the heck does that mean?

Hynek's writings and public statements are filled with this kind of tip-toeing. Clearly, he took the extraterrestrial hypothesis quite seriously, and I don't think it would be a stretch to say that he did in fact advocate for it.

Vallee, again, advocated the ETH as probably part of the UFO explanation... and perhaps even the least interesting part.

reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets


I'm not sure that's completely accurate. This might be more accurate:
Interdimensional hypothesis

The interdimensional hypothesis (IDH or IH), also called the extradimensional hypothesis (EDH), is an .... alternative to the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH)....

The development of IDH as an alternative to ETH increased in the 1970s and 1980s with the publication of books by Vallée and J. Allen Hynek. In 1975, Vallée and Hynek advocated the hypothesis in The Edge of Reality: A Progress Report on Unidentified Flying Objects and further, in Vallée's 1979 book Messengers of Deception: UFO Contacts and Cults.

By the way this is one reason when a sighting is unexplained it doesn't seem logical to jump to a conclusion it must be extraterrestrial. How do we know it's not interdimensional, or something else?

Much obliged for the link on Interdimensional hypothesis. It will be interesting to sort through the data that they say supports that. In the old Vertigo Comic series, the Invisibles, Grant Morrison wrote about this as well.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
By the way this is one reason when a sighting is unexplained it doesn't seem logical to jump to a conclusion it must be extraterrestrial. How do we know it's not interdimensional, or something else?

As to the first part of your post, the Wikipedia entry on the IDH, I just take Hynek's own words as more valuable than someone else's summary of them.

But your point is a good one, no doubt. Of course the true explanation behind UFOs remains unknown. Those two, Vallee and Hynek, were simply thinking in terms of probabilities, which is not at all anathema to 'real' science, but is actually fundamental to it. That is a highly misunderstood point.

So the ultimate answer to your last sentence above is that Vallee and Hynek were indeed true scientists -- in thought processes, depth of analysis, and real-world qualifications -- and they recognized that the ETH requires less of our current physics and cosmology to be discarded, while the IDH would require more. (More on that in a bit, especially as to Vallee.) It's just a simple application of Occam's Razor: the ETH seemed to them (especially Hynek) to be the least radical of the set of explanations which might reasonably account for the hundreds of high-strangeness / high-credibility cases they encountered.

Vallee later went farther down the road of extreme strangeness than did Hynek, I think at least partially because he later became more accepting of certain types of less-corroborated witness accounts, and therefore, to Vallee, the IDH became less of a stretch, or perhaps even necessary.

So, while I think your question (and the point associated with it) is important, to me the most important questions seem to be:
1) would the IDH be any less radical and Earth-shattering than the ETH?
2) if the IDH were found to be the true explanation behind that core of strong UFO cases, would that make the ignorant dismissal of the topic that we currently see (by some who improperly claim the 'skeptic' label) any more excusable or intellectually defensible? This class of skeptics / deniers / debunkers (several of whom have admitted in these very pages that they're actually hesitant to read about the topic!) are not simply saying "the ETH is not proven"; they're instead basically assuming that any non-mundane explanation for UFOs is practically impossible, and ridiculing those who think otherwise, sometimes subtly, sometimes not so much.... Druscilla and Ectoplasm are the two most recent examples of this, and plenty of confirmation for my statement can be found, but, in their defense, they are FAR from alone....

(And as an aside... like many, I appreciate true skepticism, which is inherently 'open', because it's the most honest approach to any unproven hypothesis, and because (with respect to UFOs) it keeps those who'll believe all the frauds and charlatans in check. I just wish there were more of that true skepticism around here. Instead we tend to see the extremes, on both sides of the debate, with any actual analysis occurring much too rarely. (Debates regarding youtube videos where rudimentary concepts such as angular size, optics, or brightness are only brought up 8 pages in, if at all.) That scarcity of analysis is present in this very thread, where we see too much of the intellectual equivalent of "stop, drop and roll". Yet this thread could have been very interesting -- more linear than circular -- even despite the inflammatory title. But, sadly, it's become just another in the long line of slightly extremist and unproductive 'debates'....)

reply to post by WingedBull


Your post shows that you don't understand what you're talking about. You're grasping at straws. You said:

Yes, those are all still extraordinary claims, as we have no unequivocal evidence to support them yet. Parallel universes and the like may actually exist, but we still don't know for sure. Any claim that they are real is extraordinary (as would be any claim they are not real) and would require very strong evidence, evidence that could not convincingly be used to draw any other conclusion.

First, there's no such thing as extraordinary evidence. The scientific method doesn't require extraordinary evidence. There isn't some national scientific guidelines that say anything about extraordinary evidence.

You just have to have evidence that supports the underlying theory and there's doesn't have to be anything extraordinary about the evidence.

Show me a national scientific guideline that requires extraordinary evidence.

Saying Parallel universes exist is not an extraordinary claim especially if you understand quantum mechanics and string theory.

The holographic universe is not an extraordinary claim, just look at information theory and black hole thermodynamics.

Saying the universe is a quantum computer isn't an extraordinary claim when you look at how a quantum computer work.

An extraordinary claim is one that has no evidence to support the claim. Like saying pink elephants with wings exist. This is an extraordinary claim that has no evidence to support it. At the end of the day, it doesn't require extraordinary evidence to show they exist. It just takes evidence.

The so called skeptic throws out this silly claim about extraordinary evidence as a way to look past all of the evidence that supports the claim extraterrestrials exist or something like Psi.

What there saying is there isn't enough evidence in the world to support these things. You have to have some "extraordinary" evidence. No, you just need evidence.

You said:

But you are not making a subjective claim. Science is not subjective, it is objective

Again, you don't understand how science works. Science is full of subjective claims and this is why you have debates on so many theories.

The subjective claims in science are built on an objective truth (as far as we know it to be true). So an objective truth would be that Gravity exist. You know have subjective theories about the origin of gravity. Is Gravity an entropic force? Will theories of quantum gravity explain it's origin? These are subjective. There are some that reach the conclusion that Gravity is an entropic force. There are some who come to the conclusions about different theories of quantum gravity.

The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis is built on the objective truth of U.F.O.'s. These are Unidentified Flying Objects. I have debated many skeptics and talked to other Scientist about the issue and I have yet to meet one that denies that Unidentified Objects or Unidentified Aerial Phenomena is an objective truth.

The subjective theories and claims occur to try and explain these U.F.O.'s.

Again, science is very subjective and this is why you get vigorous debates. So when you claim Science isn't subjective, you're wrong.

I completely sympathise with TeaAndStrumpets' points about interdimensional hypothesis. And would even add a few other points.

I think it's fair to say that a major aspect of UFO research, and just a general interest, is finding out whether there are non-human actors behind the UFO phenomenon. Considering the fact we know so little about the phenomenon does it matter, right now, whether they are extraterrestrial or interdimensional, assuming there is a non-human origin to it?

Even if somehow we could get confirmation there was something non-human behind some UFOs, how would we go about determining whether it was extraterrestrial or interdimensional?

Theorizing about what UFOs might be and coming up with new theories is fascinating and entertaining, but I feel, right now, it serves little purpose to the general goal to engage in discussions of which hypothesis is better or more adequately accounts for all the alleged aspects of the UFO phenomena. As if we even know what extraterrestrial or interdimensional would be or act like to say one is better than the other.

reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets


Great point.

Those two, Vallee and Hynek, were simply thinking in terms of probabilities, which is not at all anathema to 'real' science, but is actually fundamental to it. That is a highly misunderstood point.

This is what I have been saying through the entire thread.

Look at the Higgs Boson. Before the LHC was even built there was vigorous debate about the existence of the Higgs Boson and there still is. Some people came to the conclusion that the Higgs Boson was more likely to exist and less likely not to exist based on the available evidence.

Originally posted by Druscilla

Originally posted by Brighter

I'd like to point out that Druscilla has expressly stated in another thread that, not only do they not own a single book on UFOs, but they are against reading any of the UFO literature. ...

This is a good example in that it's indicative of another primary trait of the denier - sifting through the data and choosing to look only at what is convenient to prove the initial (unproven) biased opinion - in this case, that UFOs do not exist. ...

... I'm not trying to be rude, but you're actually embarrassing yourself.

In other words, how can my leaving out the COMETA report be an example of confirmation bias and 'intellectual dishonesty' on my part, if that very report supports my hypothesis? But thanks for bringing it up. (Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.) ...

So, not only do you not read any of the UFO literature, you also clearly didn't read the COMETA report that you just sited. Again, this is a perfect example of psychological denial - the data doesn't matter by virtue of the very fact that it indicates a conclusion that the denier has already deemed is false.

... And there you go, attacking a personality as opposed to the topic or topical points; as always.

*sigh*

I wonder what that's called?

On top of that, you call me a "denier" when in my previous post I explicitly state:

X=Y (X being unidentified, Y being know phenomenon)
or, X=0 where 0 is "unidentified"

A finding of X=0 leaves the door open for data that is currently unquantified/unidentified/unknown.
In other words, a finding of X=0 means that X still has the possibility of matching for Aliens, Time Travelers, Inter-dimensional beings, Gods, Angels, Demons, and/or any other unidentified fruit on the tree we have zero data to identify.

X=0 keeps a case open for new data, whatever that new data might be.
X=0 doesn't put a label on "Unidentified" because by labeling it anything otherwise would be giving it a known quantity, and as of yet, we have zero known quantities of Aliens, Gods, Angels, Demons, Time Travelers, Inter-dimensional beings, and other such.
X=0 doesn't rule out your Aliens.
X=0 does not verify your Aliens either.
It leaves the question open until we know, if ever, what Aliens, and/or any of the other unquantifiables are.

Further, were you as diligent in regard to one of your favorite "Druscilla doesn't own a single UFO book" attacks, which by the way is an extremely weak argument against any qualifications I may have for discussing this topic, you may find in several other threads examples where I claim I'm quite positive there's other sentient technologically advanced species elsewhere in the universe at large (as a matter of opinion).

Does that sound like a "Denier"?
No, it sounds more like you are picking convenient arguments in hopes of undermining a character, while ignoring others directly in front of you that hold greater relevance to the topic.

You've had ample time to find these things out, yet as zealous as you are about bringing up topics across threads and attacking a character instead of the topic and points given only in the thread currently under discussion, you fail to do anything other than confuse the argument and turn any debate into an instance of personal harassment without ever really addressing the real topic.

Further why would I need read COMETA when it clearly states the information I cited in the Wiki?
COMETA -wiki

The report concluded that about 5% of the UFO cases they studied were utterly inexplicable ...

And still, you cite the report more in favor of your argument with a higher inexplicable percentage of 21% where I simply cite another percentage from another report to illustrate your cherry picking of percentages.

As far as embarrassing; I'm sorry, but, that egg is all over you.
Please try again another time. So sad, poor thing.

edit on 26-8-2012 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)

Once again, I have to seriously question your ability to accurately recognize even a basic logical fallacy. I believe you're accusing me of ad hominem personal attacks against your character. Yet what makes an attack an ad hominem attack is that it points out an irrelevant personal characteristic of someone.

However, the fact that you willfully ignore the entirety of the UFO literature is not a trivial, irrelevant fact.

And nor is your inability to recognize an actual application of a logical fallacy. These are both highly relevant personal characteristics, and are directly relevant in determining your fitness in drawing any objective conclusion regarding any aspect of the UFO phenomenon.

Originally posted by WingedBull

Originally posted by Imtor
You want to be objective, skeptics ? Stay in the Middle of the Scales - Keep Equilibrium, don't move to the left or right, or your balance will be lost.

Absolute nonsense.

People like yourself and neoholographic/polomontana have a gross misunderstanding of what skepticism is. It is not, as you attempt to cast it, a demand one stay in the middle of a topic and stay undecided. On the contrary, skepticism demands you follow the evidence. If the evidence leads to a conclusion, skepticism does not tell you to ignore it. It demands you embrace that conclusion, until such time that better evidence is presented. If better evidence is presented and leads to a different conclusion, then skepticism demands you change your position.

Skepticism, despite your (often) gross misunderstanding, is not neutrality.

Absolute nonsense is your understanding of my understanding about skeptics.

I was saying that it is good to be not neutral, but taking both as a possibility when the facts suggest so. I was refering to the Moderate Skeptics. Because let's face it, there are two sub-groups in both sides: Moderate and Radical believers, Moderate and Radical skeptics (let's just call them so..). I was complimenting those, who besides me can also think even aliens should not be excluded at least in FEW cases.. based on the facts. I will repeat it for you:

Based on the facts not belief. (A person believes in aliens != A person evaluates some data and does not exclude even more extraordinary possibilities when the facts suggest so) - of course this MISTAKE is done by too many Scoffers here, thus convicted of being a 'Believer'

What facts? The once showing strange incidents did happen, that the officials either pretend they do not know or they really don't know.. Need I say I am saying 'do not exclude even aliens a few times to have come' with a big word: 'hardly'

So back to the Groups: I do not mind someone more skeptical than me, that is being a Moderate Skeptic, I CHEW RADICAL Skeptics and Believers posting nonsense threads. Do you see the difference? Dismissing both sides does not make me NEUTRAL, since I say an opinion, I am simply in medio

Now if skepticism means 'embracing the current evidence' as you claim... then when the current evidence says:

Do not believe in Aliens stories when no real public evidence shows so (Hello? Where did the non-public one go?)
Do not exclude Aliens because of all from Ancient Times to contemporary times - some events 'it's just a myth' that have happened (Troy, Nevada cave red hair giants, battle of David w ..), the proof of places in space that can sustain life and the possibility of more complex to exist as well, the unseen technology and things happening to some people, officials and such

Why are skeptics dismissing something that despite - I agree - less likely such as aliens - than all being man made as a possibility. Hmm? Why not a possibility, where is your evidence that everyone lies to say that such should be excluded by all costs?

Do I believe aliens are visiting, am I certain? No, but do I know what's still hidden as documents about UFOs and I am sure they know what they are - yes guaranteed there is more and they know, so unless the evidence shows clearly what they are, how can you exclude one of the things?

I hate radical skeptics and posters of Andromedian contactees and such nonsense, so to me both radical groups are idiots. Do you belong to any of these two groups?

Originally posted by Imtor
I was refering to the Moderate Skeptics. Because let's face it, there are two sub-groups in both sides: Moderate and Radical believers, Moderate and Radical skeptics (let's just call them so..). I was complimenting those, who besides me can also think even aliens should not be excluded at least in FEW cases.. based on the facts.

I'm unsure why you think there are two groups of skeptics and only one of those groups would think "aliens should not be excluded ... based on the facts."

Skepticism involves not dismissing, a priori, any claims, but subjecting those claims to critical and scientific examination. So no true skeptic would dismiss the possibility aliens could be the answer to a particular unexplained phenomenon unless there are factual reasons to do so. Which is not the case with UFOs.

reply to post by Quaesitor


I am not a believer as I clearly stated, I come from medial point of view... So why do I think there are two groups of the same side? Because you see, some around here are willing to accept they do not know what something is, and can accept as doubtful as they are, that it could be even some other beings, they will just never say it IS as if a fact without solid proof.

And this is what you're saying are all skeptics are about, That's funny because I've seen and probably the one I quote denies everything and kind of misses (said softly) this other part of possibility of the current evidence, so where is the 'The current evidence says so, we only make conclusions based on it'

Because the current evidence has the two parts I mentioned in the above post:

Do Not Think it's Aliens
Do not exclude it's aliens

and not just one part the 'Do not think it's aliens' - the evidence has it both and when someone excludes that other part, what's that? Straight skepticism? No, it's idiocy

and while I cannot give much examples of such idiocy around here, I have seen people saying as ridiculous things as 'Area 51' does not exist and so silly posts, that that's the radical I am talking about,

So yes, there is this group as well, it;s however Scoffers, that are unscientific clueless and in most cases KIDDIES lost in the internet. Sometimes SHEEPS are a good synonym, I see someone that got banned talking bad things about immigrants in the US while kissing his Gov's ass - Ok Gov isn't as bad as Conspiracies tell (but some ppl could be totally!). Believing them they are so transparent and straight? Seriously? What kind of idiot one has to be to blindly defend the politicians? No Politican is transparent and I am talking globally not only about the US.

And to say that I am not attacking just this type, should I list: Earth is a Hologram Projected by Aliens, Earth is a spaceship, the Moon is a spaceship, the Moon is the Death Star, Aliens are Demons, Satan Counterfeits, Aliens come from Hell, Aliens are Demonic in nature, Aliens are Interdimensional (well could be but those do not think there can be 3D beings somewhere), Mars has a Pharaoh around natural cliffs, the Moon has Pyramids, Reptilians eat people, Answers From Andromedians, Arcturians, GFL, Warning By The BENEVOLENT!!!, NWO Bases Destroyed... and #1 'I AM ALIEN IN HUMAN BODY' !!

^ Throw that garbage in the Hoax forum and it will be fine

This is the radical of the other side, 'the believers' side - telling me there are not believers in visitation and those who believe in the listed ridiculous things? So yes different groups

Originally posted by Brighter

Once again, I have to seriously question your ability to accurately recognize even a basic logical fallacy. I believe you're accusing me of ad hominem personal attacks against your character. Yet what makes an attack an ad hominem attack is that it points out an irrelevant personal characteristic of someone.

However, the fact that you willfully ignore the entirety of the UFO literature is not a trivial, irrelevant fact.

And nor is your inability to recognize an actual application of a logical fallacy. These are both highly relevant personal characteristics, and are directly relevant in determining your fitness in drawing any objective conclusion regarding any aspect of the UFO phenomenon.

Riiiiiight. Because your papa use to be Sheriff of this town and when the Dalton gang up and shot him to death, that left you with the tin star to sort such out? */sarcasm*

Your attacks are entirely irrelevant. Fitness in drawing any objective conclusion regarding any aspect of the UFO phenomenon?
Really?
Can you get any more full of yourself?

One needs never to have seen or even heard of the UFO phenomenon to be able to look at a balloon in the sky and say, "Hey, that's a balloon", or to be able to Identify Venus, a Satellite, a meteorite, a Bolide, a comet, a Lenticular cloud, a helicopter, CGI, or any number of other objects or phenomenon which are entirely relevant to the Y variable where X may very well equal Y.
Anyone with Inductive or Deductive reasoning, especially as is applicable to the Y variable, is entirely qualified.

Your fallacy lies in your claim that if I've never read a book about some unknown variable that no one has any conclusive data to quantify, a subject that is ridden with speculation, that my fitness to see the planet Venus and call Venus for what it is, is questionable?

No one needs read the barest speck of UFO literature to conclusively identify Venus.
No one needs read the barest speck of UFO literature to conclusively identify a helicopter.
No one needs read the barest speck of UFO literature to conclusively identify Lens Flare.
No one needs read the barest speck of UFO literature to conclusively identify a Balloon.
No one needs read the barest speck of UFO literature to conclusively identify any Y variable that falls within the category of known objects and phenomenon.

If anything, I posit exposure to UFO literature INCREASES the risk fro probability bias in favor of X=0 where misidentification of, or willful refusal to properly identify Y variable objects and phenomenon becomes more common.

Your argument is invalid, irrelevant, and trivial.

You need some help. Your sense of self importance is concerning as it borders on Grandiosity and if you talk to a physician now, it could save you some trouble in the future.

Here's another catch 22 for so called skeptics.

Many of them will say that it's possible that U.F.O.'s are controlled by extraterrestrials.

When you make this statement, you're saying that there's enough evidence to reach the conclusion that extraterrestrials exist.

If there isn't enough evidence to reach this conclusion, then why say extraterrestrials are a possible explanation for U.F.O.'s?

For instance, I wouldn't say green elephants with wings or pink unicorns are a possible explanations for U.F.O.'s because there isn't any evidence to support the claim.

So it doesn't take a leap of faith or any jump to conclusion to reach the conclusion that extraterrestrials exist based on the available evidence. The Skeptic agrees that there's enough evidence to reach this conclusion or they wouldn't be open to the possibility that U.F.O.'s can be connected to extraterrestrials.

I suspect many so called skeptics just say this because they want to appear open minded. So you usually see double speak with the so called skeptic because they think saying that extraterristrials are a possible explanation gives their closed minded beliefs cover.

Why do you think NASA spends billions looking for life outside of earth?

Why do they spend billions on Rovers and satellites looking for exoplanets? Why are the Europeans spending over a billion for a mission to Europa? Why do we spend millions on Astrobiology research that looks at extreme conditions where microbial life can survive and then look for other planets where these conditions exist?

There not spending billions to look for pink unicorns in the woods.

This is yet another admission by Governments throughout the world that there's enough evidence to reach the conclusion that extraterrestrials exist. If there wasn't enough evidence to reach this conclusion then why would they be spending billions?

So, the most you can say is that there's not enough evidence for you to reach this conclusion. This is just a subjective opinion. It doesn't take a leap of faith or a jump to conclusion to come to the conclusion that extraterrestrial exist based on the available evidence.

reply to post by neoholographic

I touched on this point earlier when I mentioned the IDH. If it's unexplained we can make a whole list of things it could be:

ET craft
Interdimensional craft (IDH)
Time travelers
Unknown meteorological phenomenon
Top secret military project
...


And that's just a partial list. Why would we prefer ET over any of the other possibilities on the list if we don't know what it is?

Neil Tyson explains argument from ignorance: "If you don't know what it is, that's where your conversation should stop. You don't then say 'It must be...' anything. That's what argument from ignorance is."

Neil Tyson talks about UFOs and the argument from ignorance

So is it possible some unidentified sightings are ET? Yes.
Is the evidence sufficient to conclude that ETs are the most likely cause of some sightings? I suppose that's a matter of opinion, but if you have come to that conclusion, I would ask how you decided that ET craft are more likely than interdimensional craft (IDH), when two prominent UFO researchers like Hynek and Vallee stated the IDH might be more likely?

Originally posted by neoholographic
Here's another catch 22 for so called skeptics.

Many of them will say that it's possible that U.F.O.'s are controlled by extraterrestrials.

When you make this statement, you're saying that there's enough evidence to reach the conclusion that extraterrestrials exist.

No it doesn't. What a foolish thing to say. Sure it could be extraterrestrial, but it could be many other things as well. Why does it have to be aliens? Have all other possibilities been exhausted prior to coming to your conclusions? I doubt it.

Edit to add: I haven't read any post on this thread denying the possibility of ET existing...only that some don't know if they're visiting Earth.