Why is the skeptics OPINION given any weight?

reply to post by neoholographic


Let me try to explain that again.

So I assume the Pilots, Police Officers and Astronauts are telling the truth until I have some evidence that their not.

Nobody is questioning whether they are saying the truth or not. I am sure they are. What I am saying is that what they think they have seen is not necessarily what it was. As Schuyler has mentioned, a true skeptic will question. Could it have been this? Could it have been that? Questioning. Eliminating. Coming to a conclusion.

The reason skeptics try to belittle these eyewitnesses is because of their personal belief system.

A skeptic belittling is not a skeptic. He's a denier, a naysayer. That is not a true skeptic.

A true skeptic questions. And reaches a conclusion.

Big difference. Listen, I was a gullible everything's a UFO when I joined this place. That changed. And it is because of the skeptics. I still believe but not everything I see, everything I hear, everything I read.

reply to post by EsSeeEye


Wrong again,

U.F.O.'s have been proven to exist. Their Unidentified Flying Objects.

So the true skeptic approaches the subject searching for the truth not trying to placate their belief system.

So the person claiming to be a skeptic has already reach a conclusion before they even hear any eyewitness testimony.

So of course, eyewitness testimony becomes meaningless when it comes to something you don't believe.

reply to post by SonoftheSun


LOL,

So now you have to be "gullible" if you don't accept the skeptics belief?

This is just silly. Again, evidence based skepticism if fine. Silly opinion masquerading as skepticism isn't.

The problem with many people who claim to be skeptics is they have a closed mind.

When they eliminate the possibilities, most of them never include extraterrestrials as one of those possibilities. They conclude that there has to be a "normal" explanation for these things.

When Doyle put these words in Sherlock Holmes mouth, it was brilliant.

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

Most so called skeptics have concluded that things like Psi or extraterrestrials are not probable explanations before they even begin searching for the truth. How is that an open mind?

reply to post by neoholographic


Neo,

When I talk about gullible, I was talking about me. Not you or anyone else. (Mind you, I could think of a member or two..or three..) Meh.

We might be saying the same thing here but with different words.

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

Wasn't it Spock that said that ??

reply to post by SonoftheSun


Sherlock Holmes said it.

www.bestofsherlock.com...

reply to post by neoholographic

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

How about some unknown meteorological phenomenon then? Improbable?
Or Fairies? Improbable?
Or Ghosts? Improbable?
Or (gasp) maybe the eyewitness was mistaken? Improbable?

As I recall, Holmes didn't rely on eyewitnesses. He used his own powers of observation and deduction with physical evidence.

reply to post by Phage


Your post illustrates exactly what's wrong with people claiming to be skeptics.

You have reached a conclusion before you even ask the question. This isn't skepticism. This is just belief masquerading as skepticism.

How can you search for the truth when you're trapped in the cave of a closed mind?

reply to post by neoholographic

You have reached a conclusion before you even ask the question. This isn't skepticism. This is just belief masquerading as skepticism.

What conclusion? I just pointed out the absurdity of applying the quote from Holmes to eyewitness accounts.

And how more absurd it is to use it to give credence to the ETH when there are many available "improbable" conclusions.

Originally posted by neoholographic
U.F.O.'s have been proven to exist. Their Unidentified Flying Objects.

The statements "UFOs exist" or the counterpart "UFOs don't exist" only make sense to those who automatically attribute an origin to UFOs, i.e. aliens.

For those who make no assumptions about the origin of UFOs, what the word means is "the observer was unable to identify an object he or she saw in the sky." Therefore saying "UFOs exist" means nothing, since we know there are objects in the sky (birds, planes, weather phenomena, etc) and not every person who has observed the object or phenomena has the knowledge or capacity to identify it.

If a member of an uncontacted tribe in the Amazon saw a B2 fly by he wouldn't be able to identify it, and, to that person, it would be a UFO. It might as well be alien, or some flying god. But it wouldn't be a UFO to those who are aware of the B2s existence and appearance.

So of course UFOs exist, but that in itself means nothing, and more importantly, and relevant to our discussion here, it proves nothing.

So of course, eyewitness testimony becomes meaningless when it comes to something you don't believe.

Why is eyewitness testimony so important to you? Even assuming people are seeing some alien spacecraft, you'll never be able to determine its origin by looking at it. It could be some secret project. It could be some unknown weather phenomenon.

For those trying to determine or prove the origin of UFOs eyewitness testimony, in my opinion, isn't really that useful, since you can't really do anything it.

reply to post by Phage


No it's not absurd unless you have evidence to suggest otherwise. You said:

As I recall, Holmes didn't rely on eyewitnesses. He used his own powers of observation and deduction with physical evidence.

Again, I wish you would read the post before you respond. If you have evidence to rebut the eyewitness testimony or you can impeach the eyewitness, then that's evidence based vs just an opinion which you see in most cases

Cut through the ridicule and search for factual information in most of the skeptical commentary and one is usually left with nothing. This is not surprising. After all, how can one rationally object to a call for scientific examination of evidence?

Be skeptical of the "skeptics."

reply to post by neoholographic

I read the post. Perhaps you should read mine.

Holmes would not accept an eyewitness account at face value. Using his "quote" is senseless (and not just because he was a fictional character). He would search for other clues and, since the stories were fictional constructions, he would find them. If he hadn't found those clues, he would not have come to any conclusion (being a good skeptic).

You assume that an eyewitness report is accurate. You assume that because no "mundane" explanation fits the report that there must be some "improbable" explanation. You, instead of leaving it with that, conclude that the ETH is the best "improbable" explanation. What's wrong with concluding that there is not enough information to come to any conclusion? It's not a murder mystery after all. There is no body. There is no crime.

reply to post by Quaesitor


Yes it does mean something.

U.F.O.'s means their unidentified, not that we can't identify what they are based on evidence which includes eyewitness testimony. We're not talking about some tribe in the Amazon but technology that has been rendered useless by these U.F.O.'s.

I give weight to eyewitness testimony because I don't accept or reject eyewitness testimony based on my belief system like most skeptics do.

Most so called skeptics reduce eyewitness testimony from Police, Pilots, Astronauts and more to just a bunch of blathering idiots with vivid imaginations. We entrust some of these people with our lives, so why should I belittle what they're saying just to placate my belief system? This is what skeptics do?

reply to post by neoholographic

Most so called skeptics reduce eyewitness testimony from Police, Pilots, Astronauts and more to just a bunch of blathering idiots with vivid imaginations.

There you go again with that claim.
You accuse me of being one of those skeptics which you despise. Please show me where I have accused any eyewitness of being a blathering (I think the word you want is blithering) idiot. Please show me where I have claimed their sightings are the result of a vivid imagination.

I disagree that most skeptics behave that way.

reply to post by neoholographic

BTW. Here's an example of why a skeptic's opinion might carry some weight. No accusations of blithering, no vivid imagination.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Phage


Wrong again,

Your debating a point that's not even in contention. I said evidence based skepticism is fine. This is exactly what you said. You said Holmes would change his mind on eyewitness testimony based on physical evidence and observation. Well if the skeptics were basing things on physical evidence. The skeptic bases these things on opinion in most of these cases.

You said I assume that the eyewitness testimony is true. No, I just don't assume that the eyewitness testimony has to be false or that there has to be another explanation. I don't think there has to be another explanation so I don't have to belittle eyewitness who would get respect and their testimony would be given weight in most other cases.

Originally posted by neoholographic
U.F.O.'s means their unidentified, not that we can't identify what they are based on evidence which includes eyewitness testimony.

That's exactly what UFO means to an impartial person. You however apparently think unidentified = alien. Then you are guilty of the same bias the denialists you vent about are.

We entrust some of these people with our lives, so why should I belittle what they're saying just to placate my belief system? This is what skeptics do?

I didn't belittle anyone. I said eyewitness testimony isn't really useful, in my opinion, not because I think those people are liars, but because testimony only gets you so far. Someone saw something. They describe what they saw. Great. Now what? It's not tangible data you can work with.

I have seen a UFO and I don't claim to know what it was much less that my sighting is proof of anything, other than I saw something I couldn't identify. I have no problem admitting that, objectively, I don't know what I saw. Nor do I need to believe a particular theory to mask and feel comfortable with my ignorance.

Originally posted by neoholographic
reply to post by SonoftheSun

 

Sherlock Holmes said it.

www.bestofsherlock.com...

I was attempting to lighten up the conversation a bit..you know..humor..

Apparently that didn't work so well either..

Good Luck on your quest Neo.

reply to post by Phage


You're not making any sense.

When did I accuse you of saying these things? I don't know you or I haven't read any of your post except on this thread. I wish you would learn how to read a post.

I said I was watching a skeptic on TV. It's what you see on a lot of shows about U.F.O.'s.

So again you're crying wolf and you're not making any sense. If you're not like the skeptics I talked about in my OP, what are you debating?

reply to post by neoholographic

You said I assume that the eyewitness testimony is true. No, I just don't assume that the eyewitness testimony has to be false or that there has to be another explanation.

How's that again? You don't assume it's true but you don't assume it has to be false? So what are you left with?

BTW. I did not say that you assume the eyewitness testimony is true. I said you assume it is accurate. There is a difference. People's observations are often inaccurate. Saying "the testimony is true" only means that the witness is relating what they believed they observed. So I guess that's a difference between you and me, I usually believe a witness's report is "true". I don't necessarily believe it is accurate. I have seen far too many cases where it has been demonstrated to be inaccurate. This doesn't mean the witness is a "blithering idiot". It doesn't mean they are a victim of an over active imagination. It means that their eyes were fooled.