Why is the skeptics OPINION given any weight?

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by lifeform11
hey whats wrong with using skeptic logic when assessing skeptic evidence?

Yeah, that point is well taken. ;-)

Originally posted by lifeform11
if you don't want to 'believe' or consider anything until you have everything right in front of your face in picture form that is your choice

So you saw a youtube video so it must be true....

but don't then tell everybody else there is no evidence or not enough evidence to conclude the alien possibility.

There is zero evidence to conclude aliens are coming here - if there was you would be able to produce it!

The biggest fallacy in 'Where is the evidence' when it comes to the topic of interdimensional or Extraterrestrial or whatever else beings is - just because you don't see the evidence in straight sight does not mean it doesn't exist when some people who you cannort verify are correct as well as lying, say that such things exist or happen. The best you can do is say - both - it could be this or it could be that, because so far the evidence of EBEs suggests both possibilities. You cannot be certain of course, it's humanly possible every single person who talks about seeing such beings in AUTEC or Rosewell or Dulce or some other place to be lying - then again the chasing and silencing of people suggests - don't exclude it.

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by lifeform11
if you don't want to 'believe' or consider anything until you have everything right in front of your face in picture form that is your choice

So you saw a youtube video so it must be true....

but don't then tell everybody else there is no evidence or not enough evidence to conclude the alien possibility.

There is zero evidence to conclude aliens are coming here - if there was you would be able to produce it!

i have no idea how your first comment relates to what i said, what youtube video? whats must be true? i don't think the alien possibility is true as in certain, i believe it is a possibility, hence the word use throughout the whole thread of possible or possibility.

if you believe there is zero evidence that is fine by me. but i don't agree. what exactly would one have to provide to satisfy a request of evidence. often it starts out at evidence and then ends up being 100% proof with a photo of an alien and the inside of a spacecraft.

give people some idea of what is classed in your opinion as evidence.

reply to post by neoholographic


Your post continues to demonstrate that you have no clue about fundamental philosophy that guides science. Until you can show otherwise, no post you make is worthy of being given any serious consideration or even being read.

Show me the proof!!!

Here's some evidence which I think is interesting.

There's a lot of genuine NASA footage if you can actually be bothered to find it and watch it.

Google disclosure project and have a read.

www.disclosureproject.org...

Let me guess it's all fake and they're all lying.

Originally posted by JimTSpock
Show me the proof!!!

Here's some evidence which I think is interesting.

Google disclosure project and have a read.

www.disclosureproject.org...

Originally posted by JimTSpock

Let me guess it's all fake and they're all lying.

I don't know if it's fake or they're all lying. Someone would need to ask those question and those people would need to provide solid evidence for what they are asserting. Then that evidence would need to be given some critical analysis in order to vet and attempt to confirm that evidence -- i.e., be constructively skeptical.

The alternative to asking questions and vetting the available evidence (being constructively skeptical) would be to blindly accept all evidence at face value. However, blindly accepting all evidence as fact does nothing whatsoever to advance the study of the UFO phenomenon. Questions need to be asked, and evidence needs to be confirmed.

Science by its very nature is skeptical. Nothing is believed by the rest of the scientific community simply because a certain scientist "says so". That scientist needs to show his work and be ready for the bombardment of other scientist trying to poke holes in his ideas and conclusions -- often by trying to find fault with the evidence (such as faults in the experimentation process).

Every scientific theory has been vetted like this. Science is constantly trying to find flaws in its own theories and hypotheses -- even theories that are regarded as being well-formulated (such as the Big Bang Theory).

Science is naturally skeptical -- that's how science works, and that's how theories are advanced forward. If you take healthy skepticism out of science, then all you have left are people promoting theories based on experiments and evidence that could be flawed....

...Similarly, if you take healthy skepticism out of the study of the UFO phenomenon, then all you have left is a religion built on faith and blind beliefs, rather than a science built on confirmed and vetted facts.

Originally posted by JimTSpock
Show me the proof!!!

Here's some evidence which I think is interesting.

There's a lot of genuine NASA footage if you can actually be bothered to find it and watch it.

Google disclosure project and have a read.

www.disclosureproject.org...

Let me guess it's all fake and they're all lying.

edit on 27-8-2012 by JimTSpock because: Add

I recommend you take a look at this thread regarding Steven Greer:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You may wish to note that many of the more reputable personalities that appeared for the Disclosure Project, after discovering how they were used and by whom, have since disavowed any further association or contact with Steven Greer.

It's up to you to make your own choice regarding the matter.

Regardless of what I argue, or anyone else argues, it's entirely up to you to come to your own conclusion regarding anything related to this highly speculative subject.

reply to post by Druscilla


And if there's one problem with the UFO community, it's that speculation, assumptions, anecdotes & memories are touted as evidence. Hence, why they get defensive and call anyone who asks sensible questions and tries to apply logic "debunkers".

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


I understand your point. You require absolute scientific proof. I thought it was quite interesting to say the least.
You don't know if they're all lying? Of course you don't.

Originally posted by JimTSpock
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

I understand your point. You require absolute scientific proof. I thought it was quite interesting to say the least.
You don't know if they're all lying? Of course you don't.

There is no such thing as "absolute proof" (not even in science). So, no -- I don't need absolute proof.

I do, however, think the evidence presented by a person who says they witnessed a UFO incident needs to be vetted for accuracy, or possible mundane explanations for an UFO event should be examined.

If someone says:

"I saw a UFO -- it was a silent bright light in the sky, moving quickly
that turned a dim orange and suddenly disappeared"

would it be unreasonably skeptical of me to ask if that person looked on sites such as "heavens-above.com" to verify that it wasn't the space station?

Originally posted by Druscilla

Originally posted by Brighter

I'm not holding my breath on the discovery of any natural phenomenon in either the near or distant future of metallic, symmetrical objects hovering, flying, and attaining almost unbelievable speeds with the ability to also stop on a dime and perform 90 degree (or even greater) turns, often with artificial external lighting.

I suggest you do some reading regarding current investigations into theoretical phenomenon:
Wormholes, for instance
where the appearance of reflective spheres could indicate the manifestation of a natural phenomenon wormhole endpoint interface into local space time where the endpoint disallows local interaction such that it displays high reflectivity where local light/radiation interaction is repelled due the nature of the interface being a nontraversable exit-only interface.

Instances where light or lights may be seen from such an interface could indicate light radiation interacting with the unseen entry-point interface.

A nontraversable end-point interface may appear as a solid reflective object and due noninteractivity with space time locality, such solid appearing spheres could display similar 'abilities' apparently in violation of local physics often attributed to UFO/Flying saucer craft.

Saucer shaped interfaces would attribute to interface lensing.

Such explanation is theoretical speculation supported by mathematical models, but, speculation none the less, though no less relevant than any speculation regarding intelligently controlled spacecraft.

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

So now you want us to entertain the idea of Unidentified Flying Wormholes.

You see, this is just another perfect example of what happens when someone isn't familiar with the content of the best UFO cases. Without that underlying structure of data, pure speculation ensues.

It would be clear to anyone that does possess this underlying data that this wormhole explanation is utterly absurd. I want you to really think about what you're saying here. For your explanation to work, we'd have to assume that wormholes, often with external lighting, sometimes with windows / portholes, are flying around our atmosphere in an intelligent manner. In other words, you want us to entertain the idea of intelligently controlled wormholes with symmetrically placed external lighting and windows. Right. Not to mention the fact that not all of these craft are disc shaped. Some are spherical, triangular, diamond-shaped, cylindrical, cigar-shaped or toroidal. That's right, a triangular shaped wormhole. Sure.

This is scientism once again - any socially conventional explanation, no matter how absurd or how poorly it fits the data, is preferable over a non-conventional one. This is not science. A true scientist would never try to force-fit the data to an hypothesis in such a violent manner. The only way to make the wormholes 'theory' work is to not only force-fit properties of a wormhole to try to get them to resemble UFOs, it is also to completely ignore some of the most salient facts of the best UFO cases.

This is further evidence of a real deep bias against the idea of UFOs, as you appear to be willing to entertain an idea even more bizarre than UFOs - if you take your idea to its logical conclusion, you are willing to entertain the idea of intelligently controlled wormholes with external lighting and windows, but not the simpler theory that fits the data - the idea of intelligently controlled craft.

Originally posted by Brighter

So now you want us to entertain the idea of Unidentified Flying Wormholes.

You see, this is just another perfect example of what happens when someone isn't familiar with the content of the best UFO cases. Without that underlying structure of data, pure speculation ensues.

It would be clear to anyone that does possess this underlying data that this wormhole explanation is utterly absurd. I want you to really think about what you're saying here. For your explanation to work, we'd have to assume that wormholes, often with external lighting, sometimes with windows / portholes, are flying around our atmosphere in an intelligent manner. In other words, you want us to entertain the idea of intelligently controlled wormholes with symmetrically placed external lighting and windows. Right. Not to mention the fact that not all of these craft are disc shaped. Some are spherical, triangular, diamond-shaped, cylindrical, cigar-shaped or toroidal. That's right, a triangular shaped wormhole. Sure.

This is scientism once again - any socially conventional explanation, no matter how absurd or how poorly it fits the data, is preferable over a non-conventional one. This is not science. A true scientist would never try to force-fit the data to an hypothesis in such a violent manner. The only way to make the wormholes 'theory' work is to not only force-fit properties of a wormhole to try to get them to resemble UFOs, it is also to completely ignore some of the most salient facts of the best UFO cases.

This is further evidence of a real deep bias against the idea of UFOs, as you appear to be willing to entertain an idea even more bizarre than UFOs - if you take your idea to its logical conclusion, you are willing to entertain the idea of intelligently controlled wormholes with external lighting and windows, but not the simpler theory that fits the data - the idea of intelligently controlled craft.

... and the above is an example of selection bias or favoritism, as well appealing to incredulity with a dogmatic rejection of new possibilities immediately out of hand.

Nowhere did did I say natural wormhole phenomenon would account for the entirety of any and every unknown variable.
Nowhere have I said that Aliens are NOT a possibility. I criticize the possibility of aliens, sure, but I don't leave the possibility out. There is a possibility for aliens. I just don't gosh and gush over it.

You made a statement of disbelief and even disdain, regarding the discovery of new natural phenomenon.
I proposed some examples.
Your dismissal of any probability that could further narrow the percentage of unknowns, even where it's speculation, shows your true colors.

I simply supplied an example of one natural phenomenon that could narrow the percentage of false positive hits, an example that's no more or less relevant than Aliens.

Nowhere were triangles, diamonds, lucky horseshoes, green clovers, or any other Lucky Charms shape described other than spheres and variations on spheres such as the lens/saucer shape.
Freud might have something to say about those cigar and cylinder shape reports, but, that's beside the point.

Nowhere were portholes described either.

However, since portholes are mentioned, are you just going to take an anecdotal account for the portholes as true? Portholes could very well be the result of human embroidery due faulty memory.

What is the measure and quantity of human memory and cogitation anyway?
Well, let's look at a chimpanzee and then compare. Can you beat a chimpanzee?

Click HERE for the same test you can take yourself.

If you can't beat the chimpanzee, then, don't feel bad, because Chimpanzees are quite a degree superior in comparison to humans when it comes to memory reflex, and rapid cognizance in assimilating split second data.
Chimpanzees actually have better data throughput than humans.
Humans, by measure, are about the worst animals on the planet when it comes to memory reflex and assimilation of rapidly changing and/or foreign data.
Anecdotal evidence without alternative corroboration is thus essentially inadmissible.

Portholes? Maybe, but, then again, maybe not.

Your own lack of objectivity and complete bias in favor of Aliens, or *cough* the Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis, is shining like a beacon in this last post of yours.
Bravo.
You could have said you were a biased believer from the start.

It's fine. You and anyone else can believe, hide out in the closet, or not believe to whatever comfort level they want to.
Don't get mad at me when it doesn't come true.
I'm not responsible for the lack of aliens.
I'm only calling it how I see, or don't see it.

If we're talking about the entire canon of UFO literature one possibility that hasn't been touched on is some kind of take on the Jungian theory. I think everyone would have to agree that there is a great paucity of physical evidence so we are primarily discussing the reports of human observers. From this point of view the phenomenon could be the projection of psychological or spiritual reality; perhaps even a projection that somehow occasionally manifests in physical reality though Jung was somewhat reluctant to go that far. He did, however, agree that whatever it was the phenomenon could be detected by radar and could be photographed though as far as other evidence there was little to none. I don't see that we've moved very far from that situation in the last fifty years.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


You say there is no such thing as absolute proof then you say you don't need absolute proof.
Which is it? There's no such thing or you don't need it?

Originally posted by Druscilla

There is a possibility for aliens.

It's fine. You and anyone else can believe, hide out in the closet, or not believe to whatever comfort level they want to.
Don't get mad at me when it doesn't come true.
I'm not responsible for the lack of aliens.
I'm only calling it how I see, or don't see it.

You believe in aliens. It's possible aliens exist and are flying UFOs, in your opinion.

Originally posted by JimTSpock
It's possible aliens exist and are flying UFOs, in your opinion.

I think this viewpoint is true for most skeptics, they just don't consider the possibility to be that great compared to lots of other possibilities, but sure it's a possibility. Carl Sagan was a skeptic and he admits that possibility here:



I think this is a fairly reasonable representation of a skeptical viewpoint. Actually he seems quite excited about the possibility of alien civilizations.

reply to post by Brighter

This is scientism once again - any socially conventional explanation, no matter how absurd or how poorly it fits the data, is preferable over a non-conventional one. This is not science. A true scientist would never try to force-fit the data to an hypothesis in such a violent manner.

Oddly enough, the "Extraterrestrial Hypothesis" is Scientism at its worst. It takes an entirely materialistic attitude towards phenomena that may not be material in nature, and then uses "scientific" sounding concepts to justify its arbitrary findings. The two most eminent, and scientific, researchers of the phenomenon ultimately rejected the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis in favor of something you yourself called "more bizarre." (Or was that weirder? This thread is too long for me to hunt down the exact phrase.) Although Hynek shied away from being explicit, for obvious reasons, Jacques Vallee was blunt. UFOs belong in precisely the same category, and probably have the same origins as, faeries, elves, celestial battles and other folkloric apparitions. His voluminous research points strongly towards UFOs being mythological in nature, and as Jung has proposed, the mythological is not necessarily "unreal."

You fail to understand the skeptical paradigm at all. My gut tells me that one object cannot affect another over a distance without some sort of intermediation. That a particle can change its spin instantaneously as a response to a change in a particle light years away goes against every rational assumption, every common sense intuition. As a skeptic, I would require strong evidence for such an extraordinary claim. And yet, Quantum Theory predicted that such "spooky" interaction over a distance is not only possible, but necessary. Carefully controlled laboratory experiments have been designed and conducted. Such seemingly impossible interactions have been observed. I have no choice but to waive any further skepticism on the matter.

But, you say, UFOs have been "observed" as well! Not exactly. All of the observations have been uncontrolled and anecdotal. UFO reports are descriptions of a subjective experience, not a quantifiable laboratory experiment. There have indeed been "observations" made by machines; radar, cameras and so forth. Nevertheless, until all the possible explanations for such uncontrolled "sightings" have been exhausted, there is no reason to believe they favor one interpretation of the data over another.

reply to post by DJW001
I might be splitting hairs here, but some interpretations carry more weight than others.

The folkloric interpretation suits some reports and falls short of explaining others. You cite Hynek and Vallee as being dubious of the ETH and yet both maintained there was an unknown phenomena being observed.

Sure, no sightings were controlled and none were part of a quantifiable laboratory experiment. It's still hard to put some accounts on the doorstep of 'subjectivity' when they had the objective backing of radar or independent observers.